2.73 

H4a, 




Class _l:L£i:i 



% 



A 




A 



THE MERCURY'S COURSE, 



AND 



THE HiaHT 



OF 



REE DISCUSSION. 



CHARLESTON: 

STEAM POWER PRESS OF WALKER, EVANS AND CO 

No. 3 Broad Street. 

1857. 



•Hi-^ 






The Correspondence which will be found at the end of this pam- 
phlet, having made an appeal to the judgment of the people of 
the State, "with the evidence before them," upon the issues involved in 
the several articles which follow, I have.deemed it not altogether super- 
fluous to collect all the articles which have appeared on hoth sides, and 
thus give an opportunity for' a fair judgment — the result of which I am 
quite willing to abide. 

I. W. HAYNE. 



[From the Charleston Mercury, Wednesday, August 27.] 

ELECTION FOR REPRESENTATIVE. 

The following; is the result of the election held on Monday and Tues- 
day last, for a Representative to the State Legislature, in place of Col. 
J. Charles Blum, deceased : 

W. Whaley. T. G. Barker. 

Ward No. 1 172 148 

Ward No. 2 182 156 

Ward No. 3 274 250 

Ward No. 4 368 233 

Upper Poll 405 161 

Lower Poll 298 125 



1699 1073 

Majority for Whaley, 626. 



THE ELECTION IN CHARLESTON. 



The election, whose result we give above, has been looked to with a 
great deal of interest in the State, as determining the feelings and opin- 
ions of the people of Charleston, with respect "to parties In the State 
and the policy of the General Government. The South Carolinian 
states the issue, which it supposes to be involved in the election, in the 
following words : 

" The Election in Charleston. — The candidates for the Legislature 
have defined their position. Mr. Whaley approves, without qualifica- 
tion, of the resolutions of the Democratic Party of Georgia and Missis- 
sippi in their late Conventions, with respect to Governor Walker and 
his proceeding-sin Kansas; and, if elected to the Legislature, he will 
vote for that man for the United States Senate who, possessed of ability 
and chara.iter, will support the principles and policy of those resolutions 
in Congress. 

" Mr. Barker (who, by the way, is a young man of about twenty-five, 
and just entering on the political stage) condemns Gov. Walker's unjus- 
tifiable interference in the affairs of Kansas Territory — deems the Con- 
vention, elected by the people of Kansas for the purpose of framing a 
Constitution, the only competent judges of the propriety of submitting 
that Constitution to the people — and, if elected, will vote for that can- 



6 

didate for the United States Senate who, he shall fhink, is best qualified 
to support the honor and dignity of South Carolina, to maintain the 
Constitution of the United States in all its integrity, and to carry out 
the true piinciples of the Democratic Party of the South." 

Mr. Whaley being elected by the handsome majority of six hundred 
and twenty-six votes, we suppose settles the question as to the feelings 
and opinions of the people of Charleston. 

In our article of the 19th instant, we ventured to assert, that "if the 
elections for members of Congress or our State Legislature wei'e about 
to take place, South Carolina would evince the same unanimity which 
characterizes the people of Georgia and Mississippi. We do not be- 
lieve that a single man, who sought the suffrages of our people, would 
dare to defend or support Walker's villainy in Kansas." 

We wrote these words in view of the election then pending in this 
city, and determined yesterday, and they have been fully verified. — 
Neither of the candidates undertook to palliate or defend Gov*. Walker. 
Mr. Barker's language is as follows: 

"In reply to 'Many Citizens,' in the Mercury of yesterday, I an- 
swer — That I regard Gov. Walker's coui'se in Kansas, as reported to us. 
as wholly irreconcilable with the principle of non-interference in the 
affairs of that Territory, and with the Democratic principle of self-gov- 
ernment, which were intended to be secured by the provisions of the 
Kansas-Nebraska act, and which were proclaimed in the platform of 
the Cinciimati Convention which nominated Mr. Buchanan." 

And thus it would be in every part of our State, if elections were 
now pending before the people. Yet the people were not satisfied with 
this disclaimer of Mr. Barker of any affinity with Gov. Walker. They 
elected a man, in preference, who would stand on the Georgia and Mis- 
sissippi Resolutions, and in the election of a Senator for the United 
States Senate, would enforce their policy. 

In another respect this election is very significant. We have heard 
a great deal about the National Democratic Party in South Carolina. — 
Its strono-holds were supposed to be Greenville District, under the con- 
trol of Major Perry, and Charleston, under the control of — we now, 
since the election, won't say who. Now this election seems to prove 
that there is no such party in Charleston as a National Democratic 
party. Neither candidate would grace their names with National Dem- 
ocrat. Mr. Whaley notoriously was the candidate of the State Rights 
Democratic party, Mr. Barker, in his speech to his supporters, dis- 
tinctly declared what he was. He said : 

" He had attached himself, when he first came out, to the Southern 
Rights Democracy, and he had fought with them for what he conceived 
to be great moral and political principles ; and he had no intention nov?, 
because he was a candidate, to qualify or change his political creed in 
one single iota." 

Mr. Barker's position is all that the State Rights Democracy can de- 
sire. If he had succeeded in his election, they could not have failed. — 
Their principles would have triumphed, if not their man. We congrat- 
ulate our friends throughout the State at the result. 



[From the Charleston Mercury, Thursday. August 2S.] 

Messrs. Editors : — We have carefully read the editorial of the Mer- 
cury, and although it professes to throw " a little more light " upon the 
result of the late" election, we are still so far in darkness as to require 
still more light in order to comprehend the course of the Mercury. Of 
what is the" late election significant? We do not care to follow the 
course of the canvass in our examination of the political antecedents of 
the candidates, or of the combination of influences which produced the 
result. These are well understood by the people of Charleston. To us 
it appears that no election has probably ever been held in Charleston, 
which was Zei-s decisive "of the feelings of the people of Charleston 
with respect to parties in the State, and the policy of the General Gov- 
ernment." 

It is as much due to Mr. Barker as to the people of Charleston, that 
dissent should be expressed to the view taken by the Mercury. The 
Mercury pretends that Mr. Barker's defeat was owing to his not having 
copied the Georgia and Mississippi resolutions verbatim in expressing 
his opinions on Kansas affairs, and his not having adopted the identical 
language of those who interrogated him through the Mercury. 

We cannot believe that the mtelligence of the community in Charles- 
ton has been exercised on such hair-splitting distinctions as these. We 
believe that the people of Charleston adniire the independence of Mr, 
Barker in choosing his own language in which to state his political po- 
sitions ; while at the same time the Mercury is forced to admit "that 
Mr. Barker's position is all that the States Rights Democracy can 
desireP 

Again : The Mercury would fain have it that the election disproves 
the existence of any sympathy in Charleston with the National Democ- 
racy ? How can this be so ? The very candidate whose election the 
Mercury. heralds as a subject of public rejoicing, is not only a National 
Democrat, but declared that "the National Democracy is the only party 
with whom we have any sympathy of feeling or community of opinion — 
the only party which stands out boldly for the Constitution, and the 
only party capable of giving any eftectual aid in the support of our in- 
stitutions and our common Constitution while in the Union." So far as 
we are aware, these views remain unrepudiated by Mr. Whaley, and 
judging from principle and experience, we should have supposed that 
they were in direct antagonism to those held by the Mercury. We 
know that it has been the consistent and uniform opponent of the Na- 
tional Democratic party, and has in no measured terms denounced the 
Convention which Mr.' Whaley regretted that he was unable to attend; 
and yet we find it now exulting in'the election of Mr. Whaley over one 
who is, and has been, a consistent Southern Rights Democrat, and who, 
at the very time that Mr. Whaley's National Democratic letter was 
being written, declined to accept the appointment of Delegate to the Co- 
lumbia Convention, tendered him bg Judge Magrath. 

What the i^oUtical principles are, upon which the Mercury approves 
the result of the election, we are at a loss to perceive. The political 
record of Mr. Whaley furnishes no explanation of so singular a phe- 
nomenon. We wait for further explanation, CHARLESTON. 



8 

[From the Charleston Courier of August 29.] 
THE MERCURY AND THE RECENT ELECTION. 

Messrs. Editors : — As an independent citizen, reared in the States 
Rights school, and unconscious of having at any time deviated from the 
faith, I feel constrained to enter an indignant protest against the at- 
tempt of the Mercury to make and unmake States Rights Democrats at 
its own sole behest. This print has, for a long time, assumed to dictate 
the principles, the measures and policy of the State. In all this it has 
been sufficiently narrow, prescriptive and denunciatory ; but it is a step 
beyond to undertake to select the men who shall be voted for to sustain 
the principles, measures and policy which the Mercury itself accepts. 

The Mercury of the 27th tells us that "Mr. Barker's position" in the 
late election " was all that the States Rights Democracy could desire," 
yet he was not their "man," and their friends throughout the State are 
congratulated on his defeat. And this is proclaimed in the face of the 
admission, that what are conceded to be true " principles would have 
triumphed " in his success. 

Is it to be tolerated, that a press is thus not only to erect its Procus- 
tean bed upon which men are to be placed, and the rack applied if they 
are too short, and limbs lopped olT if too long, but when a man is found 
to fit — who, in his own fair pioportions, is neither too long or too short, 
who is "-all that States Rights men can desire" — yet he is put under 
the ban, he and his supporters, because he is not "their man !" I use 
"their man" as meaning the Mercury's selection, for in examining the 
article to which I allude, it will be seen it can mean nothing else. 

The Mercury says that " Mr. Whaley notoriously was the candidate 
of the States Rights Democratic party." When was he selected ? — 
"Where nominated ? How did he become their candidate ? And why, 
I ask, was he chosen as the standard bearer of the States Rights De- 
mocracy ? 

I, for one, know of no meeting of the party — of no consultation of a 
general character among those usually taking an active interest in such 
proceedings. Again, I ask, by what authority the Mercury says that 
Mr. Whaley was " notoriously the candidate of the States Rights Dem- 
ocratic party." 

Has it come to this, that the Mercury selects the candidate ? Like 
other sovereigns, it may have a consulting " cabinet.^'' Cabinets, however, 
are usually political, and, to some extent, represent a party. Is not this 
cabinet much more jyersonal than political in its complexion ? 

If " Mr. Barker's position is all that the States Rights Democracy 
can desire," in what had Mr. Whaley the advantage personally, so as to 
make him " notoriously the candidate of the States Rights Democratic 
party ? " 

Were his politics more " States Rights " Democratic, or a la Mer- 
cury, than Mr. Barker's in 1850-51, when he was understood to ap- 
prove the "compromise" and oppose secession, whether "separate" or 
in " co-operation ? " Or when he acted as Vice President to a Whig- 
Convention and supported General Scott for the Presidency? When he 
contributed to sustain a Scott and anti-Pierce paper after his return? 



9 

or, at a later period, wlii^n he wi-ote his letter to Judge Magrath, enroll- 
ing himself as a "National Democrat " and lauding the "Cincinnati 
Convention?" Were these the antecedents malonglnm par excellence the 
candidate of the States Rights Democratic party, in preference to Mr, 
Barker, whose antecedents were always States Rights and Democratic, 
who declined to go as a delegate under Judge Magrath's appointment, 
and whose position at the time was "all" that could be desired ? 

Does it not resolve itself into this, that anybody— Whig, Union-man, 
Compromise-man, Cincinnati Convention-man, National Democrat, 
whether he is any one or all of these, — becomes the candidate of the 
"States Rights Democratic party," provided the Mercury and its Cab- 
inet approve ; and any other person, though "all" that the party "can 
desire," is not only to be opposed during the canvass, but his defeat held 
up as a cause of congratulation throughout the State. 

Will independent men, free men. Democrats, South Carolinians, sub- 
mit to be thus Prkss-kidden ? 

• It is time that real States Rights men — not self seekers, but having 
at heart the interests of the State and the South — firm in their own con- 
victions, but tolerant of difference — content to persuade rather than 
drive — desiring harmony and not distraction — should unite to prevent 
any journal from assuming to select the candidate as well as to dictate, ac- 
cording to its will, the opinions and principles of the State. 

Again : the Mercury sjteaks of the result of the late election " as de- 
termining the feelings and opinions of the people of Charleston, with 
respect to parties in the State and the policy of the General Govern- 
ment." Is it possible that the Mercury can believe this statement to be 
true ? It is news to most of the voters. 

Does the Mercury mean to imply that the 1699 votes cast for Mr. 
Whaley were States Rights Democratic votes, and the 1073 cast for Mr., 
Barker were the votes of men opposed to the doctrines and principles 
of the Southern Rights Democracy, as expressed in the resolutions 
(sanctioned by the Mercury) passed at the meeting of that party in Au- 
gust, 1855 ? Does not the Mercurv know that the feet is otherwise ? 

The tifth resolution adopted at that meeting reads as follows : 

" That ill the opinion of this meeting the existence and pi'ogress of 
the organization known as the Order of Know Nothings, is opposed 
theoretically and practically to the principles which have hitherto char- 
acterized South Carolina as a State, and the Southern Rir/hts party 
everywhere, and render a re-organization of that party in South Carolina 
a matter of imperative dutv with those who remain steadfast in the 
faith." 

One of the Editors of the Mercury was of the Committee which 
framed these resolutions — all of them approved. 

Now, the "organization known as the Order of Know Nothings " 
may or may not be dead, but is it not "notorious" that the majority of 
those who Ihen constituted that Order supported Mr.^Whaley? I shall 
not pry into the secrets of the Mercury's cabinet, but I doubt whether 
quondam Know Nothings may not be found there. 

Does not the Mercury know that very many voters refused to con • 
sider party politics as involved in the election, and gave their suff'rages 



10 

for Mr. Wlialey (a very pleasant and estimable gentleman) purely on 
nersonal grounds ? 

Is it not a fact " notorious," that many voters v^'ere, as they believed, 
••ommitted to Mr. Whaley before Mr. Barker was presented as a candi- 
iiate, and that these gentlemen voted irrespective of any political issue? 

Mr. Barker was a very young man, brought out only seven days before 
the election, but little organization among his fri-^nds, and no distinct 
party issue presented. But notwithstanding this, I am of opinion that 
Mr. Barker, who had done good se)'vice in 1855, got a decided majority 
of those who, with the assistance of the Mercury, re-organized "the 
Southern Rights party" at the meeting referred to in August of that 
year. 

Why should the Mercury ari'ogate all the credit of the late triumph 
to itself? Does the Mercury suppose that the magnificent vote in the 
Upper Wards was eftected by its lucubrations on Kansas and the Cin- 
cinnati Convention ? Will it give no share of the credit to its Know 
Nothing allies ? But Mr. Whaley himself — will the Mercury concede 
nothing to his gooddiumored face, his facile manners, his many high 
qualities, and his skill in the way of making friends in a contest not 
avowedly of a party character ? 

The late ele(;tion proves nothing but the old lesson, that combination 
and energy can always carry a community when it is caught napping? 
For one 'l am now "' , WIDE AWAKE. 



[P>om the Mercury's Editorial, August 29.] 

The communication of "A States Mights Democrat" is, we presume, 
a sufficient answer to the communication in our paper of yesterday, 
signed "Charleston." 

We must decline the further discussion of the subject with anony- 
mous correspondents. The author of the article signed "Kansas" will, 
therefore, understand that his coramimication is inadmissible. 

[Communication.] 
THE ELECTION. 

Messrs. Editors : — Last fall the National Democrats put foi'th Mr. 
Porter as their candidate for the Senate. The States Rights Democnits 
supported Mr. Whaley. Mr. Whaley was beaten by a small majority. 
A vacancy occurs in the Charleston delegation to our State Legislature, 
by the death of Col. Blum. Mr. Whaley is again brought forward by 
the i^arty which supported him last fall against Mr. Porter, and Mr. Bar- 
ker is- brought out against Mr. Whaley. By whom ? By those opposed 
to him. Who are they ? Those, assuredly, who opposed him last fall, 
and supported Mr. Porter. Mr. Whaley is elected. Now, we beg leave 
to ask, was not Mr. Porter's election over Mr. Whaley last fall claimed 
as a party triumph of National Democrats ? When now, Mr. W^haley 
is elected over their candidate, Mr. Barker, is it no triumph at all ? 



11 ' 

This simple statement, and the irresistible conclusion which follows it, 
it is attempted to refute bv two parties. 1. That some of the National 
Democrats voted for Mr. Whaley; and, 2. That Mr. Whaley, from the 
letter published ao-ainst him, had been a National Democrat. 

1. That some National Democrats voted for Mr. Whaley is undoubt- 
edly true, and it is true also that some wStates Rights Democrats voted for 
Mr. Barker. But such votes on neither side would aft'ect the position of 
the two opposing parties. Some National Democrats might have voted 
for Mr. Whaley on personal grounds, or for the same reasons he aban- 
doned the party, — more especially as recent events in the politics of the 
Union, bearing on the South, may not have strengthened their confi- 
dence in National parties; and some States Rights Democrats may have 
voted for Mr. Barker on personal grounds, or from Mr. Whaley's letter, 
or a better knowledge of Mr. Barker's opinions than the ])ublic sup- 
posed ; — but we submit to all candid minds, such exceptions from party 
voting by no means aftect the character of the-result. 

Mr. Whaley's letter undoubtedly proves that he was with the Na- 
tional Democrats last spring twelve month. But did they consider Mr. 
Whaley to be of their party last fall, when opposed to Mr. Porter, then 
candidate for the Senate? Did they consider him to be of their party 
when they brought out Mr. Barker against him a fortnight since. Did 
they consider him to be of their party when, on last Monday, in the 
midst of the election, they published Mr. Whaley's letter to Judge Ma- 
grath, when it was impossible for Mr. Whaley to reply to it before the 
election closed — not to prove that he was now with them, a National 
Democrat, but the contrary — to prove that he had been with them, and 
was now opposed to them, and thus convict him of inconsistency. The 
communication introducing the letter, after stating his having been of 
their party, says: "In October he sacrificed his recent prejudices in favor 
of the Democratic party, ignored his declaration that it was our duty 
and policy to support that party fully and fairly, and became a candidate 
of its opponents^ and went into full communion with them." 

Now, in view of the above facts, is it not marvellous that now, that 
Mr. Whaley has beaten them, he should be claimed by the National 
Democrats as one of the party, and his election, therefore, as being in 
their favor rather than against them. Your correspondent, "Charles- 
ton," plainly intimates this, and the Charleston Standard keeps time as 
follows: 

"When a party is divided between two of its members, and the out- 
siders run no candidate of their own, they will probably help to elect 
one or other of the candidates of the divided party. If it be thought 
by any that, even after this, the issue settled in the late election is not 
cleai'ly shown, we reply that we cannot help that — we pretend to no 
more light on the subject." 

No, gentlemen, this won't do. When you did not say "National 
Democrat" for your candidate, don't, when defeated, apply it to ours 
also, and claim that you are victorious by his election. Neither is it 
quite fair, when you profess to act on distinct principles, now to assert 
that there were no principles involved in the election. You do your- 
selves, as well as your opponents, wrong. The election was not mean- 



12 

ingless, and did "express the feelings of the people of Charleston with 
respect to parties in the State, and the policy of the General Govern- 
ment." The "splitting of hairs" involved nothing less than the elec- 
tion of a Senator to the United States Senate by one party or the other 
in the State. Everybody understood this. 

A STATES RIGHTS DEMOCRAT. 



[From tbe Charleston Standard, Sept. 1. — Rejected bjr the Courier.] 
THE MERCURY AND FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. 

We have heard much during the last year of "Freedom of the 
Press." What does the term mean, and what is the " area " of this 
freedom ? Does it include editors only, and those who speak what 
they would wish to do, but peiliaps dare not ? Or does it embrace the 
citizen who differs from the Press, and desires to be heard? 

The publit; have some interest in the solution of these questions. If 
the Press can utter what it pleases, and stifle all reply, then its boastful 
" freedom " is a hateful tyranny. It gives power to the Press, and cur- 
tails in a like proportion the liberty of the subject citizen. 

The Mercury misrepresents the circumstances of the late election. — 
A short reply is admitted, which is followed by another article reitera- 
ting the misrepresentation, and containing a misrepresentation more 
gross, if possible, of the circumstances of the election last fall, accompa- 
nied with the declaration that its columns are closed to any rejoinder. 
This is "Freedom of the Press," according to the Mercury ! Does the 
Courier recognize the same rules of action ? If so, the community 
should know, and shall know, how the " Freedom of the Press " in 
Charleston affects the freedom of the citizen. 

If there be an independent Press in the city, T claim a place for a 
counter statement, to be paid for if required, but a place where the dis- 
cussion of such matters is looked for, and not among the advertise- 
ments of dry goods and groceries. 

You inserted my correction of the first statement, for which I thank 
you — curtailed, it is true, and the point somewhat blunted if not alto- 
gether destroyed. But of this I make no complaint. I ask to correct 
the misstatement which has been added to the original one. 

The Mercury's correspondent (endorsed editorially) says that " last 
fall the National Democrats put forth Mr. Porter as their candidate for 
the Senate. The States Rights Democrats supported Mr. Whaley." 

How are the facts? Mr. Porter's only party nomination for the place 
of Senator dates as far back as 1848, when he was "put forth" by the 
"Taylor Democrats," a strictly sectional party, opposed to the nominee 
of the National Democratic Convention, Gen. Cass, whom the Mercury 
supported. In 1852 he was re-elected, without a nomination, and unop- 
posed. In 1856, he being the incumbent of eight years' standing, was 
again a candidate, without a nomination of any kind. Mr. Porter had 



13 

sanctioned sending delegates to the Cincinnati Convention. I was one 
who regretted this movement, but like the great majority of the city 
and the State, thought it no snfficient cause for dividing our people. 
While Mr, Porter was thus a candidate for re election to the Senate, 
Mr. Whaley was pi'esented — I will not say " put forth," or by whom — 
as a candidate for Congress. Mr. Whaley — though in 1850 and '51a 
Whig, Union man, and supporter of the odious Compromise Acts — was 
then recognized as a Democrat, standing on the principles avowed in 
his letter to Judge Magrath. This implicated him in the Cincinnati 
Convention movement much more decidedly than Mr. Porter, If there 
ever has been a period (which I doubt) when Charleston has had before 
her people a candidate run ningspec/ai/y as a "National Democrat," it was 
during the short time that Mr, Whaley was in the field with Gen. Gads- 
den and Col, Cunningham. While things were in this condition, Judge 
Magrath was brought out, not on account of his Cincinnati Convention 
views, but with at least a portion of his supporters in spite of them. — 
Mr, Whaley thereupon declined, evidently showing that he had expected 
support from the same quarter. 

Circumstances too painful for public discussion, but which still may 
/have their private inHuence, induced Judge Magrath to withdraw from 
the canvass. The Hon, Wm. P, Miles, then and now Mayor of the 
city, was nominnted as a candidate, at a large meeting of the citizens, 
and elected by a large majority of the voters of the District, Who 
were they who nominated and elected Mr. Miles? Does not the Mer- 
cury know that they were, in the city, substantially the same persons 
and the same party who had made him Mayor in 1855? Does the 
Mercury ignore the meeting held in Hibernian Hall in August, 1855 ? 
It is but two years ago. If the Mercury had really at heart the cause of 
Southern Rights, and desired to advance that cause, rather than its fa- 
vorite, it would oftener recur to the platform then adopted, and upon 
which the Southern Rights party then re-organized achieved so signal a 
triumph. The Mercury was with that party, and aided in that triumph. 
These, I say, were "notoriously" the men who "put forth " Mr. Miles. 
By whom was he opposed? Chiefly by those whom the Mercury had 
joined in denouncing in 1855 — the Know Nothings, or those who had 
lately been so. The Executive Committee appointed by those who nom- 
inated Mr, Miles, adopted Mr, Porter and placed him on the ticket with 
Mr. Miles, In this way only was he ever " put forth " by any party. — 
Are these — the former associates and coadjutors of the Mercury — the 
" National Democrats" now denounced? Why "National Democrats?" 
Mr. Miles never approved the Cincinnati Convention movement, and no 
man, perhaps, in the State was better entitled, from his antecedents, to 
be considered thoroughly States Rights and Southern Rights than he — 
unless his being a Co-operationist in 1850 and '51 excluded him from 
that category ? 

Is that the test with the Mercury ? Then how comes it that Mr, 
Whaley is such a favorite, who then was a Unionist, a Compromise man 
and afterwards a supporter of Gen, Scott against the Mercury's sole' 
Northern exception. Gen, Pierce. Now. if Mr. Porter was "put forth" 
at all, it was by the same party which "put forth " Mr. Miles. 



14 

Is it not "notorious" that Miles and Porter, in the main, ran to- 
S^ether, and Gen. Gadsden and Mr. Whal-^y ? Yet the Mercury says 
that "the National Democrats put forth Mr. Porter," and "the States 
Rifflits Democrats supported Mr. Whaley !" 

The men whom the Mercury joined in denouncing as '■'•opposed, the- 
oretically anrl practically, to the principles which have hithei'to charac- 
terized South Carolina as a State, and the Southern Rights party every- 
where" and whose action had rendered a "rally and re-organization 
of the Southern Rights party an imperative duty in South Carolina," 
are suddenly converted, in the eyes of the Mercury, to '■''the States 
Rights Democrats," and their old associates, (whether they will or not,) 
are made those most odious of all things, as it is the Mercury's cue 
now to represent affairs, "the National Democrats." The vanquished 
Know Nothings, or those who were so in 1855, and as such then most 
signally defeated, are now, with the Mercury, " the States Rights De- 
mocracy." 

"The times have been, 
That when the brains were out the man would die, 
And there an end : but they rise again 
AnApicsh lis from our stools." 

This is bad enough ; but that the Mercury, our old coadjutor, which 
exclaimed, on that occasion, '■'■magna pars fui,'''' which really was part 
and parcel of the conquering forces, though not perhaps the "head and 
front" as it then claimed to be, should take the part of these unman- 
nerly intruders, is too much to be borne patiently. 

In all seriousness, I appeal to my fellow-citizens, among whom I was 
born, to say whether a newspaper is to be allowed to assign to me my 
political position, and deny to me even the right of explanation. 

Am I, who, from birth, nurture, education and association, am as 
likely to possess a heart that feels, and a head that understands what are 
States Rights and Southern Rights, as any one of the four or half dozen 
editors that supply the Mercury, to be disparaged before my fellow citi- 
zens, among whom I always have lived and always mean to live, and to 
be denied the plain right of explanation and self-defence. If I stood 
alone, wliat is my case to-day, might be any man's to-morrow. But I 
represent now, and on this occasion, a large body of native South Caro- 
linians, and true Southern men, denied a hearing in the city of their 
residence. 

This is a question far above any involved, as I conceive in the recent 
election. Mr. Whaley is a gentleman whom I respect personally, and I 
absolve him from all participation in the misrepresentation "put forth," 
and in regard to which the Mercury refuses to allow "farther discus- 
sion" in its columns. The majority of those who voted for Mr. Whaley 
are conscious, and, as honorable men, I doubt not, would admit that the 
Mercury has, I will not say intentionally, misrepresented the motives 
controlling them in casting their votes. 

It is the unjust attempt of this Press to elevate its personal favorites, 
at the expense of others, that I consider the subject of reprobation. 

The Mercury rejoices in the soubriquet of the Hotspur of the Press. 
It "cavils," no doubt, "on the ninth part of a hair" where only the 



15 

puhlic good is ronce^'ned ; but, like Hotspur, to "a well deserving 
friend " its cbaritv and genevosit}' knows no bounds. I remember an 
old lady, once well known among tbe religious community in tbis city, 
wbose views on tbeology were tbose of tbe extremest Calvinistic scbool. 
According to her public avowal of doctrine — "narrow," indeed, "was 
tbe way," and "few," very few there were who walked therein. But so 
kind was tbe old lady's temper, that, throughout her very long life, no 
friend of hers ever died, that she did not perceive abundant evidence of 
"redeeming grace." Whether from a kind temper or not, I will not 
discuss — but the Mercury is very like her in throwing the mantle of 
charity over its friends, while the faggot and stake are too good for all 
others who cannot walk tbe "Al Sirat" of its erection. 

WIDE AWAKE. 



[From the Charleston Mercury's Editorial, September 2.] 
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS. 

We believe that it is universally conceded that no man has a right to 
have anonymous assaults upon a Press printed in its columns, and that 
a Piess has a right to refuse to publish in its columns any such assaults. 
Tbe reasons are most obvious. To be assailed is by no means agree- 
able, and no one can, with propriety, demand of an assailed party to 
help him in assailing him; but to demand of him to pay for tbQ assault 
upon himself — to furnish the proper type, risk and labor, whereby he is 
assailed, and then to circulate it afterwards, is really a most extraor- 
dinary assumption. If an anonymous disputant has such a vight, and 
happens to be longwinded or malicious, he might bankbrupt a press in 
six months. For these simple reasons no paper can be bound to print 
anything (much less anonymous communications) questioning or assail- 
ing any positions it may think proper to assume in its columns. Other 
papers may, if they think proper, lend their columns to anonymous as- 
sailants of a cotemporary press. With a liberality by no means usual 
(but which shall not easily be repeated,) we admitted into our columns, 
the anonymous communication signed "Charleston," questioning and 
disputing positions assumed by us in our columns. We, in justice to 
tbose assailed, as well as ourselves, admitted a reply, and then declined 
publishing anything more in our columns against ourselves. For this 
most extraordinary liberality to those who differ from us, we are de- 
nounced as violators of the liberty of the press. 



[From the Charleston Standard, September — .] 
THE MERCURY AND FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. 

" JVo paper" says the Mercury, of 2d Sept., " can be bound to print 
anything questioning any positions it may think proper to assume in its 
columns,''^ 



16 

I had some knowledge of the practice of this press, but the annouTice- 
nient of a proposition so iinqualitied as the above, even from the Mercury, 
fills me with surprise. Take the case presented. An election is held in 
the cit}' and the Mercury undertakes to declare that certain political 
principles were involved, and that the majoiity of 626 votes obtained by 
one of the candidates over the other, was an exponent of the preference 
of the community of one set of principles over the other. "With a liher- 
ality^'' says the Mercury, " by no means usual (but which shall not 
EASILY BE repeated) wc admitted into our columns the anonytnous 
communication signed ' Charleston,' questioning and disputing" these 
positions. The Mercury, exhausted by a "liberality" so imusnal, and of 
which it now expresses its repentance, refused a place, the next day, to a 
communication from a correspondent who protested, upon other grounds, 
stating that he, and others similarly situated, had been unjustly treated 
in the representation made by the Mercury. This correspondent, like 
the first whom the Mercury calls ^^ anonymous'''' sent his name with the 
piece. The Mercury knew him to be a subscriber of long standing — an 
hereditary subscriber — and who, as he himself stated in his communica- 
tion, had expected to leave the Mercury as a family appurtenance, to his 
children. His father had, with the Mercury, fought valiantly and effec- 
tively in the days of Nullification. He himself iml)ibed the same prin- 
ciples, and had been with the Mercury in every political contest ; — on 
the Wilmot Proviso — the Cass and Taylor canvass — the compromise 
acts — he was a secessionist — a Kansas agitator — an anti- Cincinnati 
Conventionist — and yet, when he respectfully protests against being read 
out of the States Rights Democratic party, for voting against Mr. 
Wlialey, he is denied a hearing in the journal which he has so long con- 
tributed to sustain. 

This may consist with the conventional morals of the press — the 
press may speak for itself. I take no issue on this point, but it is re- 
volting to the feelino-s, and shocks the sentiment of every ju-^t man who 
is not an editor. 

"The liberty of the press," upon this idea, is a mockery; and the 
man who (as I know this rejected correspondent ^^ Kansas''' has done in 
regard to the Mercury) aids in extending the circulation of a paper of 
his own political f:\ith, helps to elevate a tyrant, whose behests lie must 
obey, or lose position among his political associates. The Mercury 
knows, as we all do, that most of its readers can be reached only through 
its own columns, and this it presu7nes ujjon. No sophistry can reconcile 
such a course with the inborn sentiment of a freeman. 

The Mercury, in the very paper refusing admission to the protest and 
explanation of its constant political associate " Kansas,''^ publishes a 
new communication reiterating the old misrepresentation, and adding 
another erroneous statement afifecting a still larger number of voters in 
regard to the election of last fall. With this second additional misrep- 
resentation, it declares its columns closed to "further discussion." 

On the 2d September it is " driven from its silence," however, and 
favors its subject readers with a royal manifesto more full of preroga- 
tive and the haughty spirit of self-emanating puissance, than anything 
addressed to Anglo Saxon ears since the time of that superb specimen of 
a would-be despot, James 1st. 



17 

" To be assailed is by no means agreeable !" " to furnish type, risk and 
labor" for this purpose, is out of the question ! Our 'Hiherality'''' already 
has been ''extraordinary P'' Ungrateful hinds, you shall have no more 
of it! No feudal monarch could speak more proudly. We would sup- 
pose that the Mercury was not only owned by those who spoke, but 
that its readers and the public were elemosynary dependents upon the 
suzerain proprietors who issued a daily ^\\%et gratis. 

The iVlercury has misrepresented a large number of those who have 
helped to pay tor their " type and labor," and who have aided to place its 
editors in the position in which they now lord it so magnificently. 

My question has been answered by the Mercury — how satisfactorily, 
this communication will express. 

I address it now to the Press at large — is the liberty of the Press 
confined to Editors only ? Or, is there recognized such a thing as free 
DISCUSSION BY THE CITIZEN ? Is the docti'ine of the Mercury and the 
practice of the Courier — exceptional, however, in this case — approved by 
their brethren of the Press? Does the authorized suppression of free 
discussion extend so far as to justify a paper in refusing to print the con- 
tribution of a subscriber and supporter, of the same political faith, merely 
because he cjuestions positions assumed in its columns? 

If we have in South Carolina a Press which is really free and inde- 
pendent, I ask a free and independent answer. Otherwise, I must sup- 
pose that the Mercury, on this point, speaks the sentiment of the Press, 
at least of this State. WIDE AWAKE. 



[From the Charlestoa Standard's Editorial, September 11.] 

We publish this morning the re])Iy of "Inquisitor" to the article of 
" Wide Awake." Whilst opening our columns to a free discussion, it is 
our duty to refuse to be made the vehic-le of anything personal ; and we, 
therefore, shall always, as in the present instance, claim the right 
to modify the expressions of articles presented for publication in our 
columns. 

THE TYRANNY OF THE MERCURY AND THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. 

Messrs. Editors : — Cant ami hypocrisy are the order of the day. The 
Charleston Mercury, in its issue of the 27th of August, put forth certain 
views as to the late election, free from all personalities to any one. It 
stated, (what is very well known in this city) that the election was sig- 
nificant "of the feelings of the people of Charleston with respect to 
parties in tlie State, and the policy of the General Government." Or, as 
your anonymous correspondent, " Wide Awake," puts it in his own 
language, * * * * "an election is held in this city, and the 
Mercury undertakes to declare that certain political principles were in- 
volved, and that the majority of six hundred and twenty-six votes ob- 
tained by one of the candidates over the other, was an exponent of the 
preference of the community of one set of principles over the other." 



18 

For this outcry upon " independent men, freemen, Democrats and 
South Carolinians," the spleen and gall of this writer is incited to find 
vent in an ill-tempered and flippant assault upon the Mercury, thi'ough 
the Courier of August 29th. And this, although the morning previously 
the Mercury had admitted into its columns, without commentary, an 
anonymous communication under the signature of " Charleston," contro- 
verting the views it had expressed, in language as offensive as its general 
tone was discourteous. The writer called this style of address " indigna- 
tion." To this, a calm and argumentative reply is, however, made by 
"a States Rights Democrat," presenting the facts of the case in a plain 
statement, convincing to all who were conversant about parties in the 
city, and were unbiassed by passion or prejudice. 

Another attack upon the Mercury is also presented to its Editors in 
the form of an anonymous communication, signed " Kansas," which they 
very properly and respectfully decline to publish, stating that they could 
not enter into controversy upon such unequal terms as that presented by 
an anonymous writer. 

Upon this another effusion of ignorance is poured out upon the Mer- 
cury, through the pages of the Standard. The article is a studied at- 
tempt, by a resort to party chicanery and demagogueism, to arouse bad 
passions and enlist prejudices against a print that has done more perhaps 
in the cause of States Rights, Southern Rights and pure Democracy, 
than any other paper in the State or South. Patience and forbearance 
have their limits, and it is no longer fitting that this should go at large 
unchallenged. It is therefore proposed at this juncture to respond to the 
very cogent style of argumentation adopted by one calling himself 
" Wide Awake." 

The article is divisable into two heads. 1st. A charge upon the Mer- 
cury of "tyranny" for the expression of its views — and 2dly, for its vio- 
lation of the " freedom of the press" in reference to the anonymous 
writer "Kansas." 

There are some subjects, Messrs. Editors, so important that they are 
worthy of consideration, however overlaid by ill temper and perver- 
sions. Such is the latter charge prei)ared by your anonymous cor- 
respondent. 

Brieflv then to dispose of the first point: It is stated that " Kansas'" 
has been " read out of the ranks of the States Rights Democratic party 
for voting against Mr. Whaley." It is candidly asked if the writer does 
not know this assertion to be unfounded in fact ? If not, it can only be 
said that passion has blinded him to a perception of the plainest state- 
ment to the contrary. There were, doubtless, sufficient grounds in Mr. 
Whaley's previous political career to have deterred any anti-national 
States Rights man from voting for him unless he had become thoroughly 
convinced of his present fidelity and firmness to the principles of that 
party. And it is very well known that, for lack of this confidence on the 
part of some of the party, he did lose so much of their vote, which it is 
probable Mr. Barker received in consideration of his untried youth. If, 
therefore, " Kansas," or any other writer, places himself upon this plat- 
form, not one word has been said against him, as will be seen by a 
reference to the files of the Mercury. It would, beyond a doubt, take 



19 

equal pleasure and pride in claiming the companionship of such steiling 
anti- national States Rights Democrats, At the same time, it believes 
that Mr. Barker was supported by the most " national" party — as a 
party — that the city can afford ; and probably, moreover, for tlie pur- 
pose of voting for a "National" or "Convention" United States Senator, 
in the impending election before the Legislature. It is equally believed 
that Mr. Whaley was mainly supported by the anti-7iational States 
Rights party — so much so as to make the election significant " of the 
feelings of the people of Charleston, with respect to parties in the State 
and the General Government." 

These are grounds upon which the views entertained by the Mercury 
are based, and under which " Kansas" need by no means consider him- 
self " read out of the ranks of the States Rights Democratic party," 
unless he chooses. The charge of the writer then falls to the ground 
amidst fume and bluster. 

But to the second point. The Mercury has violated the "freedom of 
the press" by its rejection of the anonymous communication signed 
" Kansas !" And this writer further adds — " Is the liberty of the Press 
confined to Editors only? Or, is there recognized such a thing as free 
DISCUSSION BY THE CITIZEN ? Is the doctriues of the Mercury and the 
practice of the Courier — exceptional, however, in this case — appi'oved 
by their bi'ethren of the Press ? Does the authorized suppression of free 
discussion extend so far as to justify a paper in refusing to print the con- 
tribution of a subscriber and supporter of the same political faith, merely 
because he questions positions assumed in its columns?" 

By this extract two questions appear to be raised : 

1. Is it consistent with the liberty of the press for a paper to exclude 
from its columns the anonymous communications of a subscriber^ ques- 
tioning its views? 2. Is it consistent with the liberty of the press for a 
paper to exclude from its columns amj anonymous communications ques- 
tioning its views. 

It is always well to have some slight comprehension of the terms made 
use of in any discussion. The neglect of this caution not unfrequentjy 
leads to a confusion of ideas, and to most illogical deductions, even 
should the writer by chance happen to be honest in his researches. 
What, then, is the "freedom of the press?" Is it the right of any pri- 
vate individual, without hindrance or molestation, legal or personal, to 
write and make public at his own cost and hazard, whatever it pleases 
him to write and make public, so that it infringe not upon the public 
decency, nor upon the rights of third parties? Here is not only the lib- 
erty, but the limit of the rights of the press. But what is the Press? 
Is it the means by which public expression is given to private written 
thought ? It consists chiefly in the issue of books, periodicals and news- 
papers. The "freedom of the press," then, is the right of any private in- 
dividual to issue either a book or a periodical, or a newspaper. It 
means this ; no more, and no less. The right of " free discussion by the 
citizen" is identical and similar in each and every department of "the 
Press." As the book publisher is bound to publish no book which does 
not accord with his conceptions of his interest or the purpose to which 
his press is devoted, so in the same manner, and for the same reason, is 



20 

the proprietor of a print, whether quarterly, montlily, weekly, or daily — 
equally and entirely free to express just what views he pleases, and to ex- 
clude from his sheet whatever he thinks injurious to his interest, pecu- 
niary or political, or to that of the public. The reason is obvious. Every 
newspaper, book or periodical is the property of its editor or publisher — 
strictly private property, as much so as a house, a horse, or a doo-. Nor 
has any other man but its propi-ietor, any part, parcel or concern in it 
whatever. An editor, nevertheless, like every other public man, has 
certain responsibilities to the public, which shall hereafter be defined. 
Every publisher of books, reviews, magazines, or newspapers, simply col- 
lects at his own discretion, and his own risk of loss, certain reading mat- 
ter, which he offers to the public at a certain pri(;e. Those who" think 
it worth their money buy it — those who do not, won't buy it. If the 
judgment of the proprietor fails, he is ruined. The loss falls upon him, 
and him only. The right of " free discussion by the citizen" then, means 
nothing more than the right of any citizen to " discuss" verbally or m 
print any matter pertaining to the public interest, whether in the form of 
a book, a pamphlet, a periodical, or a newspaper, "free" from the moles- 
tation of government or the violence of pi'ivate individuals. It was for 
this Milton wrote his gi'eat argument on the liberty of the press. The 
newspaper press was not then in existence — books were the only means 
by which men expresseil their thoughts. Any other conception of the 
right of "free discussion by the citizen" is the result of pretentious 
igndrance. 

Nor does the case of a subscriber to a newspaper diftei- in any I'espect 
from that of a non-subscriber, as to his right to control a paper and pre- 
scribe its contents. The issue of a paper is but the daily issue of a book. 

The subscriber who buys the sheet has a fair exchange of equivalents 

so much reading matter for so much money. But his buying a copy of 
the paper cannot elevate him into a proprietor or editor of the paper, 
much less an editor without any of its responsibilities or risks of loss. It 
is true that editors generally admit into their paper such communications 
as in their opinion will be of interest or value to the public ; and it is 
also true that any editor will always be more inclined to give insertion 
to the communication of a subscriber than those of any other person. 
There is a bond of union between them — so much so that they, not un- 
frequently to gratify a subscriber, lend them the use of their columns to 
publish their most vapid effusions. And I doubt not it was on this ac- 
count that " Charleston" was admitted to publication by the Mercury. 
Where a subscriber brings a communication for insertion into the 
columns of a paper, he stands then like a non-subscriber, absolutely at 
the discretion of its editor, who is bound to exercise his judgment in de- 
ciding whether his interest or that of the public will be subserved by 
publishing it. 

Every one has a right to print his own thoughts at his own expense, 
and to circulate them as he pleases, whether in the form of a book, 
pami)hlet or paper. Type, paper, ink and composition can be bought. 
The editor casts his thoughts in the expressive mould of the newspaper 
press, and sells his sheets for a livelihood. And for a man to claim the 
right to demand of an editor to put his thoughts in the sheets of the 



21 

latter and to circulate them, irrespective of auy discretion on his part as 
to their truth, value or benefit, is o-laring oppression. But still further, 
to make an editor |irintthcm, not only against his juilo-nient and wishes, 
but to print them, to the injury or ruin, (mayhap) of his paper, to circu- 
late an assault upon himself, is an unbearable tyranny and a blow at the 
very base of all "freedom of the press," by those wlio atiecting to be its 
zealous defenders, would clothe their selfishness in the garb of virtue. 
Indeed the pretension is inconsistent with the very existence of the press. 
No man who values truth would undertake to express it in the press, 
with the obligation of publishing also, at his expense, all the errors or 
absurdities wliicli always gather around it. The task would not only 
be bootless, but it would soon bring him to bankruptcy. 

But are editors without public responsibilities and duties? Bv no 
means; and in pro])ortion to the manner in which they meet their hio-h 
responsibilities will be the confidence they will enlist in their behalf. But 
those very responsibilities require freedom in the exercise of their hio'h 
function. The claim set up for anonymous correspondents is nothing 
short of this; that every man in the community, by virtue of the " liberty 
of the press," has a right to have his anonymous communications printed 
in the columns of a papei", questioning and disputing its positions, and 
reasoning, uncontrolled by the volition or discretion of its editor. I won- 
der what man in England would have ventured to ask old Christopher 
North to admit into his magazine an ai'ticle disputing his positions or 
arguments? If the views of your correspondent are correct. Editors 
would be stripped of all responsibilities. Tlieir papers would be mere 
conduits, whereby the follies and passions of malignant or silly correspon- 
dents might disgust or pervert the public mind. 

But whilst a paper belongs to the Editor, and he has a rir/ht to ex- 
clude communications disputing his positions or reasonings, or conflict- 
ing in any way with liis judgment as to their propriety or value, ought 
ho on all occasions to do so ? I answer it is a matter solely for liis dis- 
cretion. It is admitted on all hands that no private person ought to be 
assailed in the press, and even public persons, where their qualifications, 
mental or moral, are disputed, or their ])ublic course impugned, ought to 
be allowed the privilege of defending themselves in the press in which 
they are assailed. Justice requii'es this, and it has been the constant 
practice of the Mercury. In the present instance there is nothing per- 
sonal involved in the matter — no one is mentioned — no one is as 
sailed. 

Nevertheless in matters of general concern, involving general prin- 
ciples, his columns should be open within proper limits to free discussion 
oi general principles, even though he has expressed very decided opinions 
upon them. Still the whole matter is within his discretion. And if the 
communication springs from hostility to his paper or party, or is, in his 
opinion, calculated to injure either, it ought to be rejected. Editors, like 
other men, are responsible, are bound to use their property and their 
power to the promotion of good and the advancing of correct principles, 
and therefore to reject from publication in their columns all communi- 
caticjns which, in their judgment, are promotive of neither good ends nor 
good principles. He is morally responsible for the good or evil his press 



22 

shall profluce ; and he alone, by his conduct, must meet this responsi- 
bility. The rejected writer may think the editor a fool for rejecting- his 
folly, but to call it tyranny is insolence. 

The public have, doubtless, long since come to their own conclusions 
as to the fair dealings which characterize, or the patriotic motives that 
actuate the Charleston Mercury. They will not now be lightly shaken 
from their belief, especially upon any of the gTounds or cTiarges your cor- 
respondent has advanced. INQUISITOR. 



[From the Charleston Standard, September, 12] 

Messrs. Editors : An article appeared in your columns of yesterday 
morning which requires a word or two of comment and <lenial. It is nor 
my purpose to enter the lists as a champion of " Wide A^vake." He is 
abundantly able to protect himself, and to volunteer assistance to him in 
a contest with "Inquisitor," would be a work of utter supererogation. 
I purpose simply to state the issue made and my connection with it, both 
of which have been erroneously stated by " Inquisitor." This I do as 
an act ofjustice to myself, and to place the true issue properly before 
the community. The opinion of "Intpiisitor" on the subject, is a mat- 
ter of indifference to me, and I shall take no trouble to correct it. 

An arti(de appeared in the Mercury, of the 2*7tli ult., which, in the 
opinion of Mr. Barker's friends, did him and them great injustice. To 
that editorial I replied by a communication, decorous in language and 
temperate in tone; for I have ever considered an affluence of epithet as 
a mere cloak for poverty of ideas, and that in a discussion, especially a 
newspaper discussion, courteous and respectful language was due to the 
community, to myself and to ray opponent. The article "Charleston" 
is before the community, and they are the proper judges of its tone and 
temper. Had its language been " offensive" or its tone " discourteous," 
as Inquisitor says, the Mercury, as a respectable journal, would have 
been bound, in strict duty to itself, to have rejected it, and no word of 
complaint could have been uttered ; but they must have been well 
aware that no such objection could be sustained, for they made 
none. The article itself would have refuted the charge and shown its 
utter want of foundation. 

The communication stated the view of the election taken by Mr. Bar- 
ker's friend, and questioning the positions of the Mercury, was in reply 
to its editorial. That journal has itself made no answer. Justice to all 
would have dictated that the Mercury should, either have frankly owned 
its error, or re-affirming its position, brought reason and proof to sustain 
its assertion. It has done neither, but, adopting the middle course, pre- 
serves a solemn silence, and leaves its defence to the communication of 
correspondents. 

Much has been said of the Mercury's liberalityin pul)lishing "Charles- 
ton." I am unconscious of the kindness. "Inquisitor" thinks it ]3rob- 
able that " Charleston" was admitted to publication on the ground that 



23 

he was a subscriber, and pays a delicate compliment to the Mercury's 
subscribers in hinting that that very respectable journal " not unfre- 
quently" bends its haughty dignity, and "gratifies" its subscribers by 
printing their " most vapid effusions." I am sorry that so delicate a com- 
pliment should be so utterly wasted on me, but I am not, and never have 
been, a subscriber to the Mercury. I asked no exercise of liberality to 
me by the editors of the Mercury on that account or any other. My 
right to admission into its columns rested on the ground that I was a 
citizen — born, I'eared and educated on the soil ; that, as a citizen, I had 
the right to express my opinion on a political question in a communi- 
cation devoid of personalities and courteous in its tone; that I sent that 
communication to the Mercury, enclosed in a note to the editors, signed 
with my name, and requesting them "to publish the enclosed commu- 
nication, and se?^c^ <Ae 6iZ/ to me." These, are facts which neither the 
Mercury nor Inquisitor can deny. How idle, then, in the face of them, 
to talk of anonymous correspondents, or vaunt the great, unusual liber- 
ality which granted acctess to the columns of the Mercury for a paid 
communication. If Inquisitor had carefully read his own article, he 
might well have paused before charging "Charleston" with "offensive 
language," and a "discourteous tone." But the retort should hemutato 
nomine de tefabula narratur. CHARLESTON. 



[From the Charleston Standard, September, 13.] 
THE MERCURY AND ITS " NEXT FRIEND." 

I have charged the Mercury with an abuse of the power of the press, 
inconsistent with the freedom of the citizen and the right of free dis- 
cussion. 

The charge was based, 

1. On the fact that the Mercury, a political journal, claiming to be 
the exponent of certain political principles, and to speak for a party 
holding these principles, imdertook to classify the voters in the recent 
election in such a way as to exclude from this party a very large num- 
ber of voters holding the principles of which that paper claimed to be 
the exponent, and who had, in the last definite partv issue in this city, 
belonged to the same organization with the Mercury. 

2. On the further fact, that after this statement, the columns of the 
Mercury were closed to a discussion of the correctness of the classifica- 
tion on the part of its own political associates, subscribers and support- 
ers, whose position had, as they conceived, been misrepresented by a 
a paper professing to speak for the party to which they belonged. 

I have purposely avoided definitions and abstract propositions. In 
the '•'■case stated^'' the Mercury, I have asserted, abused the power incident 
to its position as a public journal ; and, I now repeat, that such abuse, if 
tolerated, is unjust towards individuals ; abridges the freedom of the citi- 
zen, and becomes " a hateful tyranny." 



24 

This cliai'ire the Mercury meets by a " masterly" silence, a favorite 
policy with that paper when doubtful of the effect of discussion upon the 
opinion of its readers in regard to its own infallibility. The result is, 
that the major part of the readei's of the Mercury are not in any way 
made aware that the charge has been made. " Audi alteram partem'''' 
has no part in the Mercury's conception of fair ])lay. The Mercury 
seems to consider that its readers, like the Virginia .Justice of the Peace, 
might be "bothered by hearing both sides." Better, therefore, to play 
"Sir Oracle," and "cream and mantle like a standing pool," in the self- 
complacent, yet calculating dignity of contemptuous silence. 

But to outside barbarians, who sometimes look into other papers than 
the Mercury, the Mercury speaks by its '■'■next friend,^'' and the "type 
and labor" of the Standard ai'e taxed for the Mercury's defence. 

How near the Mercury this nextfriend may be, I shall not undertake 
to say ; but one near enough, it seems, to consider himself justified in 
using personalities towards a writer who had dealt only with the imp>er- 
sonel of a public journal. 

What are the personalities suppressed or modified by the Editor of the 
Standard, I shall never inquire ; still less shall I question his right to 
suppress and modify personalities. Epithets, addressed to an anony- 
mous writer, are verv much a matter of taste; and though an editor 
may not be as exact in regard to a correspondent, as when the language 
emanates from himself, he is right to refuse to be made the vehicle of 
what is vulgar or impertinent. 

The Mercury's next friend^ however, has been allowed the use of epi- 
thets sufficient to indicate the temper of him who speaks for the Mer- 
cury, to the outsiders. "Cant and hypocrisy," "ill tempered and flippant," 
" chi(;anery and demagogueism," " etfusion of ignorance," " pretentious 
ignoran(;e." " maliofnant," "silly," "insolence!" These are some of the 
polite epithets applied to one of the Mercury's supporters, subscribers 
and political associates, who dares question its classification of voters 
in an election where there was confessedly no party nomination, no 
party meetings, no avowed party action, and no distinct issue presented. 
Is this chaste language meant to prove that the Mercury is no tyrant, 
and that the late election iV the subject of free discussion, provided that 
"type and labor" are found elsewhere? Or is it meant to intimate that 
though the Mercury answers not, as a Press, there is a power behind 
the Press, greater than the Press, which is determined to force other 
and more formidable issues than those of mere newspaper contro- 
versy. 

I will inform the Mercury and its nextfriend, that the question raised 
is, in my opinion, one of public riijht, and so far as mv action is con- 
cerned, I intend that it shall be settled by the reason and the common 
sentiment of freemen, and not by any personal issue between individuals. 
It may suit the purposes of others to divert the public mind to the con- 
sideration of subjects more exciting and absorbing. I have no such ob- 
ject. Whether 1 have exhibited ^'■cant and hypocrisy," "'ill temper'''' and 
'•'•flippancy^'' '•'■chicanery and demayogueism" whether I have been 
" malignant and silly" and have uttered only " eft'usions of igno7-ance ;" 
whether to question the positions of the Mercury be " insolence" or 



25 

whether one and all of these pretty epithets miglit not be as well applied 
to the Mer<'ury and its " next f7'ie7id" I leave it to the public to deter- 
mine. Neitlier "paper pellets of the brain," nor that " something after," 
of which such dread epithets may be considered the dark foresh ado wings, 
shall "fright me from my ])ropriety." 

However much my articles may deserve to be styled "effusions of ig- 
norance," they have provoked reply. Have they been answered? "A 
calm and argumentative reply," it is said, was " made by a States Rights 
Democrat, presenting the tacts of the case in a plain statement." This 
statement was controverted, and a counter statement submitted, of facts 
supposed to be "notorious," which has not been controverted, and which 
it is fair to say, cannot be successfully attacked. 

A new issue, however, had been raised, and that, it seems, avoiding 
the old one, is the subject of animadversion by the Mercury's friend. 

When the Mercury declared that the " result" of the election was looked 
to "in the Slate as determining the feelings and opinions of the people 
of Charleston, with respect to parties in the State and the policy of the' 
General Government" — that the majority of 626 votes given Mr. 
Whaley " settled this question" — that Mr. Whaley was notoriously the 
candidate of the States Rights Democratic part}' — when the friends of 
the Mercury throughout the State were "congratulated" on the "result" 
— what did all this mean ? Surely this proclaims a triumph of " the States 
Rights Democratic party." Over whom ? Over those who were not of 
the States Rights Democratic party. Over those who voted for Mr. 
Barker. 

If this is not " reading" the friends of Mr. Barker " out of the States 
Rights Democratic party," so far as the Mercury had power to do so, 
then I do not understand the force of language. 

This abuse of the power of the press on the part of the Mercury, was 
the subject of my first article published in the Courier. Upon the sec- 
ond point, that is, the refusal to allow its errors to be corrected in its 
own columns, I beg»leave to revert to my former communications, and ask 
whether I have not avoided everything like dogmatism ? whether I 
have not avoided any attempt to lay down general rules for the govern- 
ment of the Press ? Whether abstractions have not been studiously es- 
chewed ? Was the Mercury right in the case stated? That was the ques- 
tion discussed. Differ as we may in the abstract, can any rule justify 
the course of that print? It is in the concrete, as the logicians express it, 
that I desired to have the matter considered. 

The questions submitted to the press, at large, were these : " Is the 
freedom of the press confined to editors only ? Is there recognized such 
a thing as free discussion by the citizen ? Does the cmthorized sup- 
pression of free discussion extend so far as to justify a paper in refusing 
to print the contribution of a subscriber and supporter MERELY because 
he questions positions assumed in its columns ?" 

I shall not now join issue in abstractions. The term " Freedom of 
the Press" has various meanings according to the time and place where 
the expression is used. Its freedom from Governmental restriction is not 
the sense in which we have heard of it in the last year in Charleston, 
and the expression here, and during that time, has been confined to the 



26 

newspaper press. Tliis freedom, define it as you may, is a mockery, I 
have said, if it can be so construed as to justify the course of the Mer- 
cury which has been adverted to. 

The proposition that the " selection and rejection of all matter necessa- 
rily rests with the editor," determines nothing. This " discretion" author- 
izes him to reject articles agreeing with and sustaining his own jiositions 
as well as those '' questioning or assailing^'' them. But does the editor ex- 
ercise a sound discretion when he rejects an article 'inerely and exclu- 
sively on the ground that it questions his position? Let the Press an- 
swer that question — those who are deterred neither by the esprit du 
corps of the craft, nor by fear of, or hope from, the Mercuiy. A Judge 
has an absolute discretion in many matters, where, should he be mani- 
festly moved by either fear, favor or affection, he would stain the ermine 
of the bench, and utterly disgrace his high calling. A jury has power 
to render their verdict in a criminal case, and it is decisive, without right 
of appeal or supervision. But if it be clearly against the law and the 
evidence, who doubts that they have violated their duty to themselves, 
to the country, and to their God? If either Judge or Jury abuse the 
" discretion'''' with which they are invested, they are justly the subjects of 
public censure and reprobation. Admit then that it was legitimately 
within the " discretion" of the Mercury to have acted or refused action in 
regard to the matter in controversy, if it has exercised this discretion in 
violation of those ^'■public respons'ib'ilities and duties'''' conceded by its ad- 
vocate to be '•'• h'lnding'''' upon it, then the public have a right to question 
the course pursued. 

That these ^'■public responsibilities and duties^'' have been violated in 
the late course of the Mercury, I have endeavored to prove. The argu- 
ment, I submit has not been met, either by the Mercury, or its friend, 
and it shall not be evaded or avoided, by the use of personalities. If the 
chai'med circle of the Mercury's exclusive readers cannot be reached, a 
portion, at least of the citizens of South Carolina shall be furnished with 
facts, which are facts. 

WIDE AWAKE. 



[From the Charleston Courier of Septembei" 14th.] 
THE TYRANNY OF THE PRESS. 

Of "the late election in Charleston" enough has been said. Nor do 
■we propose to enter into the particular acts of injustice complained of 
by the several correspondents, "Kansas," " Wide iVwake," and " Charles- 
ton," who, claiming to speak for the community, and specially for the 
States Rights Democracy of Charleston, have sufficiently protested 
against the representations of the Mercury, as to the issue said to have 
been involved, and repudiated the triumph of Mr. Whaley as in any 
way a triumph of 'p^'inciple over his opponent. 

The only facts we are concerned with are these : 



27 

1. An editorial statement put forth in the Mercury on the subject of 
the election, on the 26th August. 

2. A temperate commtcnication disputing ihe Mercury's positions, and 
denying any public issue as having been involved, but assailinri no one — 
admitted into the Mercury, August 27, but as is now said, "Sy a liber- 
ality unusual and not readily to he rei:)eated.r 

3. A temperate communication, s\<yned "Kansas," by an old subscriber 
and supporter of the Mercury, (whose name accompanied his manu- 
script,) also questioning the Mercury's statements, which was refused 
admission into the Mercury, August 28 ; on which same day 

4. An anonymous communication was published in the Mercury, en- 
dorsed editorially, and put forth avowedly as an ansioer to "Charleston" 
and other '•'■anonymous correspondents;" said replication containing a 
reiteration, but no proofs of former statements, and adding neio as- 
sertions of fact, and implicating neiv jMvties. 

This communication, signed "States Rights Democrat," was accompa- 
nied on the same day, August 28th, by 

5. An editorial announcement that the pleadings were ended, and 
•* that the Mercury'' s columns loere thenceforth closed to further discussion 
of the subject!'''' Our purpose is, for the sake of precedent, and as a 
hater of tyranny of every kind, to comment upon the positions thus 
taken by the Mercury — regarding that journal as a public journal^ 
bound by its duty to the community it seeks to I'epresent, to promote, 
within proper limits, the free discussion of matters of public interest — 
to secure the greatest possible facilities for jjrivate vindication, and 
above all, as a 2>olitical journal, to be particularly scrupulous in its rep- 
resentations of political issues and party relations. 

We will begin by finding the Mercury's condemnation in its own 
words. About a year ago, the Mei'cury, as stated below, '■'felt them- 
selves hound'''' to publish certain articles, for the following reasons, given 
in the e<litorial of September 24th, 1856. The italics are ours: 

" To Correspondents. — The free discussion of the qualifications and 
principles of men, brought forward for high political office, in times of 
difficulty and danger, like the present, has always been held by this 
journal as a fart of its duty to the people, whom it seeks to represent. 
This duty may be sometimes painful, but so long as we hold ourselves 
hound to afford the liberty of reasonable response to every corresjjondent 
who calls in question the claims and qualifications of a candidate for 
office, we do not feel that we are invading any right, or deviating from 
the jiroper character of a political journal^ 

We are at a loss to conceive how a Press, which only a year ago felt 
itself hound by such extreme notions of " duty to the peopjle it seeks to 
rep)rescnt,'" can feel itself at liberty now, as a political journal, to put 
forth statements involving individuals and party principles, and after- 
wards to deny (as in the case of its correspondent "Kansas") all access 
to its columns — such access being the only means of self defence and 
self-vindication left to those who felt themselves, by those statements, 
put in a false position before its readers. 

We are diiven to but one conclusion — that the Mercury has of late 
abandoned its former high standard as a political journal — that it owes 



28 

no longer any ^'■duty to the people it seeks to represent,^'' and feels itself 
bound alone to the narrow circle of its recent politi(;al alliances. 

We are confirmed in tliis view by the extraordinary tone and posi- 
tions assumed in its late pronunciamento on the much abused subject, 
" The Liberty of the P^-ess^'' — positions consistent only with the idea, 
generally prevalent, of its being a p>>'iv<^t^i and not a public organ. 

ERSklNE. 



[From the Charleston Courier of September 15th.] 
To the Editors of the Charleston Courier : 

The article in the Courier, signed " Erskine," as well as those from many 
other writers, waging war upon the Mercury for its editorial as to the result 
of the late election in Charleston, have been read with no little regret by 
a large portion of the community ; and they, and every repetition of 
them, must be continued to be regretted as the cause of unnecessary turmoil 
continued by malcontents, who will never be satisfied, but continue to 
growl on until they and their enmities are left by the community in a 
far more decided min<>rity. Justice requires that injustice and injury 
may not be done abroad to those who do not deserve it — that the facts 
of this case should be plainly and trutlifully reviewed, and all will then 
know whether the Mercury had a right to claim the election of Mr. 
Whaley as a triumph or not. This community knows full well that there 
is a set of individuals here who are hostile to the Mercury, politically and 
every other way. I do not know whether they amount to a party or 
not, but acting together they have hitherto enjoyed all conquering suc- 
cess as far as elections are concerned. 

Without charging Mr. Barker as belonging to any clique or combi- 
nation whatsoever, we believe — and we further believe that "Erskine" 
is advised of the fact — that Mr. Barker was at the time of the election, 
and is now, opposed to the Mercury and its friends politically and other- 
wise, and that a majority at least of his sup])orters entertained like sen- 
timents; for instance, "Charleston," "Kansas," and I would have added 
"Wide Awake," was he not so sensitive ujion the point, and expresses 
so warm a desire not to be read out of the party for indulging in per- 
sonal preference. 

These remarks will enable me to state the case and show where jus- 
tice lies. Mr. Whaley was first invited to run for the Legislature by 
those who were in close affinity with the Mercury, in fact its friends, and 
in that respect, altliough supported by many who were opposed to the 
Mercury, and objected to by some of his own personal friends on ac- 
count of the Mercury, he was regarded by the Mercury as its choice, and 
in that light received its support. Mr. Barker was afterwards invited to 
oppose Mr. Whaley, and accepted, stating, and I use his own language, 
"I beg leave to say that I consented to become a candidate for the Leg- 
islature at the solicitation of many, persons, who, like myself, do not ap- 
prove of Mr. Whaley's political antecedents and connections." The 



29 

cause of opposition is here avowed to be political, and is divided into 
two heads, antecedents and connections. As to the antecedents, I do 
not think they could have weighed much in the scale of the decided dis- 
approhation of Mr. Barker and his friends, f )r such sins as constituted 
Mr. Whaley's antecedents had been forgiven all over the South, and 
some of the most distinguished leaders of the States Rights Democracy 
of to-day were old line Whigs in 1852. It was the second head under 
which his gi'eat sin was to be found, political connections — one of which 
was the Mercury and its support. That was the great cause of disap- 
probation, and the prime cause of the opposition to Mr. Whaley. Un- 
der such circumstances the election was held, and the result is known. 
With these facts, and they are facts, is it surprising that the Mercury 
should have rejoiced in a triumph over its enemies. Every one must say 
it had a right to rejoice, and it did rejoice. 

And did it rejoice in an unfair way, by putting its opponent in a false 
position ? No one says so, for in the very editorial itself, the Mercury 
says in either event the States Rights Democracy would not have suf- 
fered. So I presume it would be as unjust a case to condemn the Mer- 
cury for rejoicing over the success of their candidate in the election, 
having done injustice to no one, as it would be to read "Wide Awake" 
out of the States Rights Paity for having voted against Mr. Whaley, 
and indulged himself in a preference for another. MARION. 



[From the Charleston Courier, September 16.] 
THE MERCURY AND MARION. 

Messrs. Editors : — The writer signing himself "Marion " expresses 
himself in a ti ne of moderation, atid presents the case of the Mercury 
in a manner which, to himself, from his stand-point, I have little doubt 
appears fair and candid. He is entitled to a respectful re]»ly. 

I shall not stop to enquire whether it is true that there is " a set of 
individuals " in the city " who are hostile to the Mercury, politically, 
and in every other way." I take the ground that, unless this hostility, 
supposing it to exist, involves a departure from the acknowledged and 
recognized doctrines of the States Rights Democrats, or a refusal to act 
with that party, moving as such, the Mercury has no right, as a public 
political journal, "to read these individuals out of the States Rights 
Democratic party," on account of such hostility. 

The gravamen of my charge is, that while the Mercury has the 
largest charity for political offences in its friends, it does not hesitate to 
hold up to the State at large, as opjyonents of the States Mif/hts Demo- 
rratic partij, individuals, because of their supposed '■'■hostilittj'''' to the 
MERCURY, however orthodox otherwise. 

The complaint is not that the Mercury rejoiced in the triumph over 
its "enemies," but that it undertook to claim all, who voted for its nom- 
inee, as States Riyhts Democrats, and to misrepresent a large portion of 



30 

those voting on the other side as in opposition., not to the Mercury., but 
to the States Rights Democratic party. 

In other words, it presents, practically, as a test of political ortho- 
doxy, voting with the Mercury in local elections. 

" Marion's " communication, when examined, appears to me virtually 
to admit the charge. 

But who constitute the "set of individuals" referred to by "Marion?" 
and where and how did this "hostility" originate? what "elections" are 
those referred to ? 

When the "rally and re-organization of the Southern Rights party" 
took place in August, 1855, were these individuals then hostile to the 
Mercury? Or is it not true that these individuals took position then, 
on the platform approved and in part framed by the Mercury itself? 

Was the election of Mr. Miles to the Mayoralty one of the " all- 
conquering successes" referred to by "Marion ?" Does this friend of the 
Mercury consider the defeat of the Know Nothings., in 1855, as a move- 
ment of that "hostile set of individuals?" 

The Mercury, as a Press., I had supposed, itself favored the election 
of Mr. Miles, and was, at that time., opposed to Mr. Richardson as the 
exponent of the Know Nothing doctrines. Not so, however, with all 
its present friends. 

The next election was that in 0(;tober, 1856. The "all conquering 
success," at that time, must allude to the election of Mr. Miles to Con- 
gress., and Mr. Porter to the Senate. Had Mr. Miles changed his poli- 
tics since 1855, when he was the selected exponent of "the Southern 
Rights party?" Mr. Porter, the incumbent of two terms standing, was 
a candidate for re-election to the State Senate. He had presided at the 
meeting of the Southern Rights party in 1855, and had been the very 
efficient Chairman of the Executive Committee of that party. Does 
not "Marion" know that this, chiefly., caused the opposition to him? — 
If the Mercury supported Mr. Whaley in opposition to Mr. Porter, could 
it have been on the ground of political ditlerence ? 

I am not arraigning the conductors of the Mercury for allowing pri- 
vate feelings to influence them in voting, but I protest against the at- 
tempt of a Public Journal to classify men politically, according to 
predilections or hostilities purely personal. 

Who had a better right to proclaim the principles actually involved 
in the election than Mr. Whaley himself? These were his words pub- 
lished in the Mercury a few days before the election : 

"The Legislative election is not intended to be, nor can it be, con- 
verted into a test of municipal party strength, nor is there any imme- 
diate issue involved in the contest, save a 2^6rsonal opposition to myself." 

If the community have been " troubled by unnecessary turmoil," on 
this, as on every other similar occasion, it will be found that the Mer- 
cury threw the first stone. WIDE AWAKE. 



31 

[From the Charleston Courier, September 16.] 
THE TYRANNY OF THE PRESS NO. II. 

" To Corresjjondents. — The free discussion of the qualifications and 
principles of men, brought forward for high political office, in times of 
difficulty and danger, like the present, has alwa)'s been held by this 
journal as a part of its duty to the people, whom it seeks to represent. 
This duty may be sometimes painful, but so long as ive hold ourselves 
bound to afford the liberty of reasonable response to every correspondent, 
who calls in question the claims and qualifications of a candidate for 
office, we do not feel tliat we are invading any riglit, or deviating from 
the projjer character of apolitical journal.'" — The Charleston Mercury, 
Sept. 24, 1856. 



LIBERTY OF THE PRESS. 

" We believe that it is universally conceded that no man has a right 
to have anonymous assaults upon a Press printed in its columns, and 
that a Press has a right to refuse to publish in its columns any such 
assaults. The reasons are most obvious. To be assailed is by no means 
agreeable, and no one can, with propriety, demand of an assailed party 
to help him in assailing him ; but to demand of him to pay for the 
assault upon liimself — to furnish the proper type, risk and labor, where- 
by he is assailed, and then to circulate it afterwards, is really a most 
extraordinary assumption. If an anonymous disputant has such a right, 
and happens to be long-winded or malicious, he might bankrupt a press 
in six months. For these simple reasons no paper can be bound to 
print anything (much less anonymous communications) questioning or 
assailing any positions it may think proper to assume in its columns. 
Other papers may, if they think proper, lend their columns to anony- 
mous assailants of a cotemporary Press. With a liberality by no means 
usual, (but which shall not easily be repeated,) we admitted into our 
columns the anonymous communication signed " Charleston," question- 
ing and disputing positions assumed by us in our columns. We, in 
justice to those assailed, as well as ourselves, admitted a reply, and then 
declined publishing anything more in our columns against ourselves. 
For this most extraordinary liberality to those who differ from us, we are 
denounced as violators of the liberty of the Press!" — The Charleston 
Mercury, Sept. 2, 185Y. 

We freely admit that this is no question of invading "The Liberty of 
the Press," nor has " Erskine" ever discussed the issue with the Mercury 
in any such light. In this country, the Legislature is the sole quarter 
from which such invasions can proceed. A Press cannot, in the proper 
acceptation of the term, be said to invade " The Liberty of the Press," 
except so far as it may, by a course of Tyranny or Licentiousness, pro- 
voke the enactment of restrictive laws. The Law of Libel, in checking 
such licentiousness and public opinion in frowning down tyranny, are 
the recognized appeals in such cases. Neither can an individual be 



32 

said to invade " The Liberty of the Press," whetlier he takes tlie law 
into his own hands, or resorts to legal process of indictment against the 
publishers of, what he may conceive to be, a libel. 

There is a popular expression, often confounded with that "Liberty of 
the Press," which Milton defended, which by a misuse of words has 
grown into constant use in modern times. We mean " Freedom of the 
Press^'' as used synonymously with '•'■freedom of discussion^ This right 
of free discussion, loe contend, is a right of the citizen, recognized by 
the unwritten common law of Public Journals in this country. Its 
sanction is in Public Opinion. To this tribunal we appeal in our issue 
with the Mercury. 

A few words more as to the facts of this case. The frequent repeti- 
tion of the word '■'■ assailed'''' in the last editorial of the Mercury quoted 
above, is calculated to mislead. We have read the rejected (communi- 
cation signed " Kansas," and know it to be courtoeus, temperate and 
dignified. The same of " Charleston," which every one has read, or 
may read, and judge for themselves. Both pieces written in self-defence 
and self-vindication — assa'iUng no one. Both pieces accompanied by 
the names of the authors, and the one signed "Charleston" with a note 
requesting the Bill. So much for the facts and the Mercury's '■'■unus- 
ual'''' and not-to be repeated liberality. From these facts, which are on 
record, from the Mercury's course of late years, and from the tone of its 
late editorial, — a tone, reconcilable only with the character of a private 
press, — we have drawn the necessary inference, that such is its present 
character. That conclusion once adopted, we, at once, acknowledge 
ourselves bound to yield our right to comment upon the Mercury's 
course as n j^ublic jomna\. 

We can no longer, as we proposed to do, regard that press "as bound, 
by its dutt/ as a ^jwft^ic journal, to the community it seeks to represent, 
to promote, within proper limits, the free discussion of matters of pub- 
lic interest." We are no longer at liberty to arraign it before the com- 
munity for having invaded the rifht of free discussion — for having de- 
nied the ordinary "facilities for private vindication;" and for having 
closed its columns to those who felt themselves misrepresented by its 
published statements. 

While we do not regard the course lately pursued by the Mercury as 
one whit less unprecedented and reprehensible in point of tyranny and 
injustice, considered even as a private press ; yet, if the Mercury chooses 
deliberately to assume that character, and, as such, to practice tyranny, 
injustice and wrong, it is for those who are wronged to defend them- 
selves as well as they can. We thank God that tliere is a public opin- 
ion beyond the control of the Mercury's influence, and that there are 
independent journals in this State who deem it no breach of press eti- 
quette to open their columns to " anonymous correspondents," who 
resort to them for free distaission, as well as for private vindication. 

It is only while a press claims, and is allowed, to hold the position of 
a public press, and to represent the sentiments of the community in 
which it is established and by which it is supported — it is only while it 
is supposed to owe "duties to the people it seeks to represent" — while 
it is understood as admitting the implied contract between the ptiblic 



33 

and every public press in this cjountry, by virtue of which, in return for 
its promoting "/"ree discussion'' within decent Hmits, and being a faith- 
ful and impartial chronicler of events, the public accords full faith and 
credit to its representations — it is only under these circumstances, and 
where such a journal has secured a certain prestige, that it carries much 
weio-ht, or that very great injury can result from its representations. 

Its character as a private journal, for the dissemination of the views 
of one or more individuals, being once recognised, and all danger ceases. 

In this regard, we have felt it due to the people of Charleston to pro- 
claim to the" world the facts and inferences which sustain our conclusion, 
that the Mercury, in its present aspect, is a 'private, and not a public 
organ. 

ERSKINE. 



[Editorial of the Charleston Mercury, September 17.] 
THE MERCURY AND ITS AbSAILANTS. 

Our readers, doubtless, may be somewhat surprised at the silence of 
the Mercury under the partizan assaults which have appeared against it, 
first in its own columns, and afterwards in the columns of the Charles- 
ton Courier and Standard. We had our motives for waiting our time, 
which we dare say our readers will understand by the time they finish 
reading this article. We propose now briefly to review our position 
and the positions of our assailants 

To understand the political state of things in Charleston, we will 
have to take a few steps backward in the course of time. 

There are but two parties, according to our apprehension, in South 
Carolina — the National Democrats and the States Rights Democrats. 
National Democrac^y sprung up in South Carolina when it was proposed 
that the State should send delegates to the Cincinnati Convention. 
Heretofore South Carolina had declined sending delegates to any such 
Conventions. Accoi'ding to the Constitution, each State by itself, 
through its Electors, is to cast its vote independently for President and 
Vice-President of the United States. It is a high act of State Rights 
and of State Sovereignty. The States Rights party of South Carolina 
has long maintained that the Constitution, in this particular, should be 
observed, not only because it is the requisition of the Constitution, and 
a high act of State Sovereignty, but because the requisition is peculiarly 
favorable to the smaller States. When the Constitution was being 
made, a fierce struggle arose in the Convention framing it, between 
the larger and the smaller States, as to the manner in which the Execu- 
tive of the United States should be elected. The larger States contended 
that numbers should control the election ; the smaller States, that 
State Sovereignty should prevail — each State, as a sovereign State, 
casting one vote. Under the old Confederation, the States had voted in 
all matters as equals. The subject was compromised. It was agreed 
o 



34 

that, as the two methods of election were incompatible witli each otlier, 
the larger States should, throuo-h the Electoral Colleges, constituted on 
the basis of Representation in Congress, have the first chance of making 
the President and Vice-President of the United States. But if they 
tailed in electing a President and Vice-President, by the Electoral Col- 
leges, then the States should vote for these officers as equals, as sover- 
eigns, in the House of Representatives, each State casting one vote. To 
defeat this compromise, and to prevent the smaller States from ever 
having an equal power with the larger States in the election of the 
President of the United States in Congress, and to secure to the larger 
States the power of making the President through the Electoral Col- 
leges, National Conventions were gotten up. They were the invention 
of Martin Van Buren, under the auspices of Gen. Jackson. In these 
Conventions, emanating rightfully from the people in no way, neither 
by the ballot-box nor by appointments through the State Legislatures, 
self-constituted, irresponsible, the President and Vice-President of the 
United States is practically made. The Electoral Colleges in the sev- 
eral States are mere registering offices, wherein are recorded the previ- 
ous acts of the National Convention. 

If these views are correct, it is clear, that to be a States Rights Demo- 
crat, and yet a Conventionist, or National Deinocrat, is an impossibility. 
By supporting National Conventions to make the Executive of the 
United States, a Conventionist opposes and sacrifices States Rights ; he 
sets aside the Constitution ; he (.lefeats the action of the States as sov- 
ereigns and equals in the election of the President of the United States. 
He is a consolidationist — not by perverting one or more clauses of the 
Constitution, but by disregarding the whole Constitution ; not by the 
old way of a latitudinous construction, but by a direct violation of its 
provisions; not by the regular forms of the Constitution in legislation, 
but by an extrinsic, an unauthorized, and irresponsible action, unknown 
to the Constitution, and gotten up expressly to defeat its legitimate 
operations. He is a consolidationist, to concentrate and make available 
and predominant the power of the larger States, and to put aside and 
render inapplicable the power and rights of the smaller States in the 
confederacy. Nothing but a misapprehension of the meaning of terms 
will induce a man to suppose that he could be a States Rights Democrat, 
and yet support a policy which so flagrantly outrages the rights of the 
States and the Constitution. On this point, he is a New York Martin 
Van Buren National Democrat ; a consolidationist, with whom the 
rights of the Constitution are sacrificed to secure party success and a 
party ascendency. 

South Carolina being a small State — professing fealty to the Consti- 
tution, valuing States Rights and State Sovereignty — has refused hereto- 
fore to lend her aid to this unconstitutional device. Her great states- 
man, Mr. Calhoun, aided her in these counsels, and guided her policy ; 
and it was only after he was no more with us, that, previous to the last 
Presidential election, it was attempted to enforce this polit^y on South 
Carolina. It was proclaimed that she must be nationalized — that she 
must bp a follower of the National Democratic party ; and, accordingly, 
a party arose in the State — National office holders and office seekers 



35 

being- prominent in the organization — who, from some portions of it, 
sent Delegates first to Columbia, and then to the Cincinnati Convention. 
They assumed the livery of the National Democratic party. The divi- 
sion, thus forced upon the people of South Carolina, was not inoperative 
in the city of Charleston. It entered into the formation of parties, and 
the elections of last fall, and in tlie late election. At a meeting of the 
States Rights Democratic party, Mr. Whaley fully satisfied them of his 
position. At a meeting of the friends of Mr. Barker, nothing was said 
as to general principles, but from his answer to the questions put to 
him concerning the Georgia and Mississippi Resolutions, the inference 
was deduced that he would vote for a National Democrat for the Senate 
of the United States, whilst it was not doubted that Mr. Whaley would 
vote for a States Rights Democrat. 

On the 21st August, a correspondent in the Evening News says : 

"We have indeed heard it asserted that Mr. Barker is the candidate 
of the Broad-street Clique, and from the interest manifested in his elec- 
tion by these individuals, we are inclined to believe in the truth of the 
report. Is Mr. Barker a National Democrat? If so, is he unwilling to 
disclose the fact, and lose his claims to support on his allegiance to that 
party ? Will Mr. Barker state what his own political antecedents 
and present political connections are? Mr. Barker's attention is respect- 
fully invited to these matters." 

To this respectful call no answer was made by Mr. Barker, On the 
24th of August, a correspondent in the Charleston Mercury, signed 
" State Rights," dissatisfied with Mr. Barker's answer to the questions 
put to him as to the Georgia and Mississippi Resolutions, expressed 
himself as follows : 

" Mr. Barker is ingenious in dealing with generalities, and his answer 
is good as far as it goes. But we think he should be a little more ex- 
plicit. There is a national faction in this State, whose object it is to 
bind South Carolina to the great Democratic party of the Union — that 
party which holds Conventions for the purpose of making Presidents, 
and builds Platforms to be occupied only as long as it is expedient. We 
wish to know, and vve ask it with respect, for we have no other feelin<ys 
towards Mr. Barker, whether he is of that party, and whether he would 
regard Mr. Orr, or Mr. Pickens, or, probably, Mr. Perry, such a man as 
comes within the category of those he would support for Senator," 

Here, in these communications in the public press, pending the elec- 
tion, it is distinctly charged that Mr, Barker is the candidate of the 
Broad-street Clique. He sees, also, without denial, the construction put 
upon his answer as to a United States Senator, 

Mr, Barker himself, it is to be presumed, understood whether there 
was any party contest in his election ; and he openly stated that it was 
a party contest, in which the Charleston Mercury and Mr. Whaley was 
of one party ; and he, with the rest of the community, was of another. 
What the principles of the Mercury are, we presume there can be no 
doubt. It is of the States Rights Democratic Party — and there was but 
one other party opposed to this — the National Democratic Party. 

His letter, referring to his acceptance of his nomination, is but a 
repetition of the same thing. He says : " I beg leave to say, that I 



36 

consented to become a candidate for the Legislature, at the solicitation 
of many persons, who, like myself, did not approve of Mr. Whaley's 
political mitccedents and connections.'''' What was the antecedent most 
galling to him and his friends? The one, surely, that they thought 
proper to expose, and relied on in the canvass to defeat him. What 
was that ? Why, that he had been of the National Democratic party. 
And what were his objectionable political connections? He had but 
one — that with the States Rights Democratic Party. 

Nor out of the city of Charleston does there appear to have been, in 
the State, much misunderstanding as to the meaning of this election. 
The South Carolinian, a National Democratic organ, published the dif- 
ferent answers of the candidates as to the Georgia and Mississippi reso- 
lutions, whilst the Pickens Courier, of August 29, takes the following- 
notice of the elections : 

" An election for a member to the Legislature from Charleston, to fill 
a vacancy, is creating considerable excitement. William Whaley, Esq., 
is the candidate of the ultra party, and Mr. T. G. Barker represents the 
Democracy of the city. Mr. Barker will, most probably, be successful." 

Now, under all these circumstances, we beg leave to submit to our 
readers, had we not good reasons for expressing the opinion, that this 
election was significant as to the feelings and opinions of the people of 
Charleston with respect to parties in the State and the policy of the Gen- 
eral Government? 

The first assailant of the Mercury was a writer under the signature of 
" Charleston," who subsequently asserts that his communication was not 
anonymous, because he sent his name in a note to the editor, with the 
offer of payment for its insertion. We might suppose, therefore, that 
he desires the disclosure of his name. We reserve that. We inserted 
his communication without pay, and without the least comment from 
us. We let it go for what it was worth, in silence. He affir'ns that his 
communication was "decorous in language, and temperate in tone." We 
think that it was neither. He says in the communication — " the Mer- 
cury pretends that Mr. Barker's defeat was owing," &c. Is this language 
"decorous" and "temperate in tone?" If a man is stating facts, and 
'"'■pretends''' only — what is the inference ? If we were to say of him, that 
in his statements against us he pretends to speak the truth — would he 
deem such language to be "decorous" and "temperate?" We think 
not. We, at least, would never have used such language towards him. 
Yet, we admitted his communication with the offensive and discourteous 
inuendo it contained, without, we trust, forfeiting our position to be a 
"respectable Journal !" 

But let us turn to the reasons assigned by " Charleston" to prove our 
errors. 

1. "Charleston" asserts that Mr. Whaley was a National Democrat, 
and, therefore, that no issue would have been made by the States Rights 
party in supporting him. This position was also taken by the "Stan- 
dard." 

Now, is it not strange that this assertion should be made, when they 
published Mr. Whaley's letter to Judge Magrath, to prove Mr. 
Whaley's inconsistency, and to injure him with the States Rights 



37 

party, by showing that he had been a National Democrat? Mr. 
Whaley never denied that he had been a National Democrat, but 
like thousands of others, who, within the last few months, have changed, 
he had learned that National Democracy may mean the betrayal of the 
South to party. In a speech he delivered to the States Rights party 
before the election, he made them as satisfied with his policy as all men 
in our city have always been satisfied with his integrity. 

2. It is argued by "Charleston," that Mr. Barker was a State Rights 
Democrat in principle, and, therefore, that no issue could be made by 
his being opposed by the State Rights Democratic party, and supported 
by National Democrats. 

It is not very unusual for a party who may not feel very strong, to 
support a man of general principles opposite to their own, to gain a par- 
ticular end. Thus John Tyler, a Nullifier, was supported and elected by 
the Whigs in 1840 to the Vice-Presidency of the United States. The 
Tariff protection party have often joined with a portion of the Demo- 
cratic party in the Northern Legislatures, and sent a Tariff Dem- 
ocrat to Congress. The object in this case might have been to secure 
a vote for a National Democrat in the Senate of the United States. But 
if no such objects existed, his "political connections" were with Na- 
tional Democrats, and that was enough for the opposition of the States 
Rights Democratic party. 

3. "Charleston" affirms that the answer of Mr. Barker to the ques- 
tions as to the Georgia and Mississippi resolutions, was, in substance, 
the same as Mr. Whaley 's. 

We think that it was not. The Georgia resolutions called on the 
President of the United States to remove Gov. Walker from office. Mr. 
Barker's answer evaded this point, and it gave no assurance that he 
would carry out the policy of the resolutions in this particular, in the 
election of a Senator of the United States, who would have to confirm or 
reject Walker's appointment in the Senate. 

We turn, now, to " Wide Awake," the coadjutor of " Charleston." 

1. He asserts "that the Mercury undertakes to make and unmake 
States Rights Democrats at its own behest." 

We might drop the assertion with a simple denial, but we can guess 
to what he refers. We never asserted that no States Rights Democrat 
voted ior Mr. Bai'ker. On the contrary, we know of some staunch and 
true men who voted for Mr. Barker on account of Mr. Whaley's letter 
to Judge Magrath, showing that he had so lately been with the National 
Democi'atic part3\ Others voted for him from respe(;t to his father, 
who, in 1848, was the candidate of the States Rights Democratic party 
for Congress, and was opposed and defeated by many of the men who 
now uphold the son. All that we asserted was this: that the bulk of 
the States Rights party voted for Mr. W^haley. We undertook to give 
position to no one. 

2. "The gravemen of my charge is, that the Mercury does not hesi- 
tate to hold up to the State at large, as opponents of the States Rights 
Democratic party, individuals, because of their supposed hostility to the 
Mercury, however orthodox otherwise." 

We answer simply by saying that we are not aware of having done 
anything or said anything to justify this charge. 



38 

3. " The complainant is, that the Mercury undertook to claim all 
who voted for its nominee, as States Rights Democrats; and, to misrep- 
resent a laro-e portion of those voting on the other side as in opposition, 
not to the Mercury, but to the States Rights Democratic party." 

We have claimed, not that all who voted for Mr. Whaley were States 
Rights Democrats, but that the great hotly of his supjjorters were of this 
party. We neither represented nor misrepresented "a large portion of 
those voting on the other side," but we have said that the great body of 
them, were of the National Democratic party. We believe still this to 
be true. 

4. He asserts " that Mr. Whaley was not the candidate of the States 
Rights party. When was he nominated? how did he become their 
candidate ?" 

Mr. Whaley was nominated by members of the States Rights party 
in the public press of the city. At large public meetings of his friends 
he avowed fully and distinctly the principles of the States Rights Demo- 
cratic party, and was supported in the election by the gi-eat body of the 
party, while he was opposed by the great body of those known as the 
National Democrats. 

5. " If Mr. Barker's position is all that the States Rights Democracy 
can desire, in what had Mr. Whaley the advantage previously, so as to 
make him so notoriously the candidate of the States Rights Democratic 
party ?" 

Mr. Barker, so far as his general principles were concerned, was unex- 
ceptionable to the States Rights paity. But he opposed Mr. W^haley 
on account of his ^'■political connections^ The State Rights party did 
the same to him for the same reason, and besides, they were satisfied 
that if elected to the legislature, he would not vote for a Senator who 
would carry out their policy in the Senate of the United States. 

6. " Does the Mercury mean to imply that the 1,699 votes cast for 
Mr. Whaley, wei'e States Rights votes, and the 1,073 cast for Mr. Bar- 
ker, were the votes of men opposed to the doctrines and principles of 
the Southern Rights Democracy, as expressed in the Resolutions (sanc- 
tioned by the Mercury,) passed at the meeting of the party in 1855 V 

We answer, that we mean to imply, that of the 1,699 votes cast for 
Whaley the great body of them are now States Rights Democrats. But 
we have never, by the remotest implication, asserted " that the .1,073 
votes cast for Mr. Barker were the votes of men opjmsed to the doctrines 
and princijiles of the Southern Bights Democracy^ as expressed in the 
resolutions of the party in 1855." We approved, and now approve, of 
those resolutions. They were directed against the Know Nothings, who 
are now, as a party, obsolete. So far from charging that a majority 
of those who voted for Mr. Barker were opposed to the resolutions of 
1855, we think that a majority of them, most probably, voted for 
him. 

7. " Does not the Mercury know that very many voters refused to 
consider party politics as involved in the election, and gave their 
suffrages for Mr. Whaley (a very pleasant and amiable gentleman) 
purely on personal grounds. 

We admit all here asserted, but it does not alter the general char- 
acter of the election. 



39 

8. It is further charged tliat the Mercury supported the Southern Rights 
organization against the Know Nothings some two years ago, and there- 
fore it is now inconsistent for it to have the Know Nothings with the 
States Rights Party. 

The Know Nothing party is dead as a party,in Charleston. The great 
majority of its members in Charleston were as staunch Southern Rights 
and States Rights men, as any in our midst. We now welcome them 
back to the States Rights Democratic Party, as we have done Mr. Wha- 
ley from the National Democratic; Party, and, as we trust, we shall do 
thousands in the State, who will see how vain it is to rely on any National 
Party in the Union to pi'otect and enforce the rights of the South. 

9. But the great point made by "Wide Awake" is, that the Mer- 
cury has violated the freedom of the Press, in arresting discussion 
against its own positions in its own columns. The Mercury admitted 
"Charleston," and a reply to "Charleston" by a "States Rights Demo- 
crat," but rejected "Kansas," and claims the right of excluding from its 
own columns anonymous assailants of its positions. 

We are I'eally at a loss how to argue a proposition so plain as the 
right of an Editor to ex'-lude assaults on his positions in his own col- 
umns. He must have this right, or every one has a right to introduce 
anything they please into his columns. Such a pretension is as incon- 
sistent with the existence of the Press, as it is with the responsibility of 
the Editor. J3ut morals and questions seem to vary to suit the Mercury. 
Last fall it was contended that the Editors of the Mercury were the pro- 
prietors, the sovereigns, the autocrats of their Press ; and that, there- 
fore, they were responsible for everything contained in its columns. — 
Now it is contended that they have, rightfully, no control whatever over 
their paper. They violate the liberty of the Press, they are tyrants, if 
they venture to decline printing in their columns assaults upon their 
own positions. These inc-onsistent positions only manifest the animosi- 
ties, not the justice, of its assailants. So much has already been said 
on this point that we forbear, at the pi'esent, further discussion in an ar- 
ticle already, we fear, too long. It is the first, and we trust may be the 
last time, we shall tax the patience of our readers in our defence. — 
"Erskine" has proved, to his entire satisfaction, that the Mercury is a 
private, and not a public Press, and we congratulate him upon his dis- 
covery. 



[From the Charleston Standard of September 22.] 
REJOINDER TO THE MERCURY's REPLY. 

Th^s pe7-secuicd print, after much long suffering and forbearance, lias 
turned upon '■'■its assailants,^'' in grave rebuke. Strange that such mon- 
sters should be found ! Men so hard of heart and of spirit, so aggres- 
sive, as to ''■assail'''' a Press at once so gentle and so Just/ 



40 

" This Duncan 
Hath borne his faculties so meek; hath been 
So clear^ in his great office. 

That tears should drown the wind." 

Why is the Mercury persecuted ? For myself, 

" I am in blood, 
Slept in so far, that should I wade no more, 
Returning ■were as tedious as go o'er." 

But to be serious. I should make no rejoinder' to the Mercury's la- 
bored defence, but for the new matter introduced. On the old points I 
could but repeat myself. My former numbers still remain unanswered. 
The Mercury, h()wever, true to its usual policy in not "bothering" its 
readers by presenting "both sides," gives no inkling in its reply of the 
counter statement of facts made bv "Wide Awake," and cites the bald 
propositions without any notice of the argument or inferences intended 
to sustain them. This article, of course, will share the same fate. On 
these points, then, I will say but a word or two, and dismiss the subject. 

1. Mr. Whaley himself, through the columns of the Mercmry, de- 
clared to the voters of Charleston that there was "wo immediate issue 
involved in the contest^ save a personal opposition to himself," and as a 
voter of average intelligence, I myself declare that I was uninformed as 
to any such issue of pi'inciple presented. This is a question of fact^ as 
to wdiich I still insist that the Mercury was wrong. 

2. The Mercury is again wrong in point oi fact, when it speaks of 
Mr. Whaley's addressing the "States Rights party before the election." 
No such meeting was held before the election. The only meetings were 
those of the respective ■'■friends'''' of the candidates. The call to the 
meeting referred to was such as to exclude every one not already satis- 
fied with Mr. Whaley, and to include all — Whigs, National Democrats, 
and Know Nothings, who meant to vote for him — as well as his friends 
of the States Rights [)arty. 

As to the other point, affecting '■'free discussion,'''' the Mercury is spe- 
cially studious to prevent even the "bald propositions" of "Wide 
Awake" from reaching its readers. 

I have accused the Mercury of abusing its poiver, in excluding ar- 
ticles MERELY on the ground that they questioneil its positions — these ar- 
ticles coming fi'om political friends and supporters of the paper, whilst 
it (the Mercury) reiterated statements in regard to the States Rights 
party, disputed by these persons. This, in a public political journal, 
was an abuse of the "discretion" vested in an Editor — a discretion 
which, it is conceded, gives him the control of the columns of his own 
paper. In a paper of the prestige and established reputation of the 
Mercury, this abuse of power was a "tyranny," and the editors are re- 
sponsible before the tribunal of public opinion. 

In what respect this position is inconsistent with an alleged personal 
responsibility of an Editor for an abuse of "discretion," still more mis- 
chievous, perhaps, in allowing the publication of matter clearly libellous, 
I must confess myself unable to perceive. Both the rejection and ad- 
mission, under these respective circumstances are, in my oj^inion, in 



41 

violation of "the public responsibilities and duties" '"binding" on 
Editors. 

I propose, however, to notice the new matter introduced into the Mer- 
cury's defence, and here, I find that, which, T confess, is the root of otfeuce 
with me in the course of the Mercury. 

I am one of those simple mortals who think that those really in earn- 
est, who have a great enterprise in view, should be anxious to enlist 
coadjutors enough to effect their purpose. "When I see, therefore, those 
engaged in an enterprise difficult and perilous, whose position gives them 
power, habitually use that position to produce distraction and division 
rather than union and concert^ I doubt their wisdom and capacity as 
leaders. When I see the usual spirit of intolerance and proscription 
yielding readily to personal predilections and interests, while it is aggra- 
vated and intensified into recklessness by local and personal antagonism, 
I consider such offenders as incorrigible. 

The Mercury says that there are two parties in South Carolina — " the 
National Democrats and the States Rights Democrats." "National De- 
mocracy sprung up when it was proposed that the State should send del- 
egates to the Cincinnati Convention." 

I think, on the contrary, and I appeal to my fellow citizens to sustain 
the truth of the assertion, that no such PARTIES, as such, exist in the city 
of Charleston. The Mercury, it is true, has labored hard to jjroduce such 
a division in the Democratic I'anks, but hitherto it has failed. 

The true history is this : a movement was made by several influential 
gentlemen, for the purpose of arranging to send delegates to Cincinnati. 
A meeting was held, but the popular heart did not respond. The people 
were apathetic and indifferent — the masses took no part. The individ- 
uals concerned gained nothing by the movement ; but, just as certainly, 
they lost nothing. The Mercury opened its batteries, and " far flashed 
its red artillery." But it all ended "in smoke." Again there was no 
response. Nobody minded the Mercury's thunderings. The people — 
the great mass of quiet voters cared nothing at all about the Cincinnati 
Convention. The few who disapproved (outside of the Mercury's family 
circle) cared quite too little to make it the cause of discord and strife, 
distra(;tion and division, where, as good patriots, they felt that there 
■shotild be harmony, concert and union. They could tolerate difference 
of opinion, and never, for a moment, thought of discarding long tried and 
valued friends because of a single error. 

At the period of Judge Magrath's nomination, no impression whatever 

had been made on the public mind. His nomination for Congress was 

made without reference to this question. The Mercury, which but a 

short time before had in glowing language congratulated the country on 

Mr. Magrath's appointment as Judge, opened its columns to an attack 

upon him on very many grounds, personal and political — the least of 

which was his connection with this movement. Cii'curastances, brought 

r^bout by this attack, induced the withdrawal of Judge Magrath. And a 

'irge portion of our citizens being satisfied with none of the remaining 

andidates, nominated the Hon. AYm. P. Miles — certainly without any 

eference whatever to this issue. 

Mr. Porter was at the sanie time a candidate for re-election to the 



42 

Senate. The opposition to him, surely, had no reference to the Cincin- 
nati Convention, nor had the support which insured his success. If Mr. 
Whaley, his opponent, has ever repudiated his advocacy of the Cincin- 
nati Convention, I am not aware of it. He certainly had not done 
so then. 

The only election since, is the recent one in which, if Mr. Whaley is 
to be allowed to define his own position, there was no such issue. 

When, then, did the peojjle of Charleston become divided into these 
" two parties ?" 

If there are two parties in Charleston, they are not such as the Mercury 
describes. If there are two parties, the one party consists, for the most 
part, of those persons known in 1855, as Knoxo Nothings — the party 
which supported Mr. Richardson for the Mayoralty — with whom, as it 
seems, the Mercury and a clique of personal adherents, have chosen to 
ally themselves. The other is comprised, chiefly, of the party known, 
in 1855, as the Southern Jlights party — the party which elected Mr. 
Miles. 

If the Mercury chooses to style the party with which it has formed its 
recent alliance, leavened with the new infusion, "TAe States Mights Dem- 
ocratic party,''^ and to dub the other as " the National Democratic," it 
undertakes, as I have charged, to make and unmake States Eights De- 
mocrats at its pleasure ?" 

If this be not the true solution, there are no two parties in Charleston, 
and every individual votes upon his own predilections, or under in- 
fluences apart from party altogether. 

The Mercury says that " the Know Nothing party is dead in Charles- 
ton." Yet the Mercury admits that Mr. Barker obtained a majority of 
those who formed " the Southern Rights party''^ of 1855. Whence came 
the large vote of Mr. Whaley ? Can it be otherwise than that he ob- 
tained the Know Nothing vote with a minority fragment of those who, 
constituted the other party ? 

If the Knot!) Nothings or those who once were so, vote thus together, 
how can it be said that they are " dead as a party in Charleston ?" The 
inference is rather that they live, and that the Southern Rights party '''m 
dead in Charleston." 

Strange that the Mercury should so readily " whistle down the wind". 
its former friends and coadjutors, and take to its " heart of hearts" the 
contemned Knoio Nothongs of 1855 ! 

There must be something in that " Senatorial election" so often alluded 
to, more than meets the view. 

But let us inquire who are these so called '■'■National Democrats,^'' 
whose touch is contamination to the Southern Rights Pharisees. They 
stand, in Charleston at least, on the same platform with Quitman and 
Davis, of Mississippi, Yancef and Clay, of Alabama, McDonald and his 
supporters, of Georgia, Hunter and Mason, and their friends in Vir- 
ginia. Nay, they come up to, if they do not rise higher, than the 
highest standard of Southern Rights erected by ^^ultraists''^ and "cx- 
tremists^'' as these are known in any other State than South Carolina. 

Why should such meu be denounced as unworthy of public confi- 
dence? Difter with them, if you please — argue with them — but do not 



43 

denounce aud use your utmost efforts to drive them still further from 
you! It cannot come to good. "Concert," says Mr. Calhoun in his 
dying- speech, his legacy to his beloved South, '■'■concert is the one thing 
needful." Is this the course to secure it ? 

But why are these men denounced, and Knoio Nothinr/s applauded as 
being " as staunch Southern Rights and States Rights men as any in 
our midst?" If the Know Nothings have repented and repudiated the 
atrocious doctrines — denounced by none more strongly than the Mercury 
in 1855 — receive them again into the fold. This is right, provided you 
believe them sincere. But have they done so ? One of their leaders 
publicly renounced the principles of tlie Order, and in the election of 
last fall he was abandoned by those who but lately acknowledged him 
as a chief. Where is the evidence of ret-antation, of repentance and 
repudiation on the part of those whom the Mercury thus openly prefers 
to National Democrats ? Does the Mercury not know that, in the main, 
as they voted in 1855, they have voted in a body, in every election 
since ? And dot^s the Mercury believe that there is any man who de- 
sii'es their support in a body, as it has been hitherto given, who dares 
openly renounce the principles and doctrines which united that party in 
1855 ? If the quondam Know Nothing still holds the principles of the 
Order, we have the Mercury's authority for it, that he "is opposed the- 
oretically and practically to the principles which have hitherto charac- 
terized South Carolina as a State, and the Southern Rights Party 
everywhere',^'' if he does not hold those principles, and remains silent, 
lie avails himself, by a studied deception, of an organization originally 
formed upon those principles. Well might Mr. I3arker object to any 
such " political connections." 

I have said mv sav, and herewith renounce my pen. 

WIDE AWAKE. 



^^^ 



The following correspondence was made public in the papers of the 
city, at the instance of Col. Ehett's friends, and with the assent of Col- 
Hayne, on the morning of September 25. 



Charleston, Sept. 23, ISoT — 5 o'clock, P. M. 

Sir : — You have lately thought fit, in divers articles published in the 
Courier and Standard, under the signature of " Wide Awake," to attack 
the Mercury with no little bitterness. From your article in yesterday's 
Standard, I extract the following passage : 

" Strange that the Mercury should so readily whistle down the wind 
its former friends and coadjutors, and take to its heart of hearts the 
contemned Knoio Nothings of 1855 ! 

"There must be something in that Senatorial election, so often alluded 
to, more than meets the view." 

The name of my father, the Hon. R. B. Rhett, has been mentioned in 
connection with the vacancy in the Senate of the United States from 
South Carolina, and I suppose it is to this you allude. I undierstand 
you to charge that the course of the Mercury has been governed, not 
by the motives and principles avowed, but by a desire to promote Mr. 
Rhett's election to the Senate. 

Deeming such a charge an insulting aspersion, I beg leave to inquire 
whether you intend, directly or indirectly, to make it. 

My friend, H. M. Manigault, will hand you this, and receive your replj . 
Very respectfully yours, 

R. B. RHETT. Jr. 

Isaac W. Hayne, Esq. 



Charleston, September 24, 185*7. 

Sir : — I received your note yesterday at 5 o'clock, P. M. 

You allude to divers articles published in the Courier and Standard, 
in which you say that I have attacked the Mercury with no little bitter- 
ness. I am not conscious that I have at all exceeded the bounds of le- 
gitimate comment on the course of a public journal. And my position 
was announced in re])ly to an article signed " Inquisitor," in which I ex- 
pressed myself as follows: 

" I will inform the Mercury, and its next friend^ that the question 
raised is, in my opinion, one of public right, and so far as my action is 
concerned, I intend that it shall be settled by the reason and common 



twt; 



45 

sentiment of freemen, and not by any personal issue between indi- 
viduals." 

I bare seen no reason to cbangv. my position, and now re-affirm it. 

The passage extracted from the later article, I notice only because 
A'ou speak, not in the general character of Editor, but as a son of the 
Hon. R. B. Rhett. 

My last article, like the preceding, was addressed to the course of the 
Mercury as a public journal \ and I cannot perceive that to charge a 
paper, as such, with political inconsistency, arising from a desire to pro 
mote a favorite candidate or candidates to high public office, is an " in- 
-ulting aspersion" upon any individual, nor was the expression cited in- 
tended as such by me. 

Very respectfully, yours, 

I. W. HAYNE. 

To Col. R. B. Rhett, Jr. 



Charleston, Sept. 24, 1857. 
Sir: — Your note of this morning, handed to my friend, Mr. Man- 
igault, by Hon. Wm. Porcher Miles, is before me. 

With respect to the charge of inconsistency which you make against 
lie Mercury as a journal, I am content that the State, with the evidence 
lefore it, shall decide upon the correctness or incorrectness of its posi- 
on — its consistency or inconsistency. 

Your reply that " (you) cannot perceive that to charge a paper, as 
-uch, with political inconsistency, arising from a desire to promote a fa- 
vorite candidate or candidates to high public office, is 'an insulting as- 
persion' upon any individual, nor was the expression cited intended as 
such by (you)," is satisfactory. 

Your obedient servant, 

R. B. RHETT, Jr. 
Col. Isaac W. Hatne. 



